Centerfield

Unilateralism and isolationism are NOT synonyms. Nor are globalization and internationalism.

I disagree. It's not isolationism is the sense that we are totally withdrawing from the world; obviously that's impossible because we have economic interests all over. But it is isolationism in the sense that we are saying that we will worry about our own interests in our own ways and the hell with the rest of the world. And, yes, you can be a globalist without being an internationalist, but Bush sure seems to be relying more and more on multilateralism and international institutions.

I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of your analysis. However, I note that inconsistency has not been a unique problem for the Bush administration. It was the Bush administration that insisted on multi-lateral talks regarding North Korea, and many of its detractors(foreign and domestic) criticized it for being obstinate in that policy.

In contrast, I would suggest that it's the President's critics who conveniently switch sides between isolationism and multilateralism. The President has insisted and stayed firm on multilateral programs in dealing with both Iran and North Korea. His critics, however, tend to scream that he's not "doing enough" about them while preoccupied with Iraq. When he makes a deal with the most economically progressive nation in the Middle East to try to reiterate our support for friendly, progressive nations in that region who join us in fighting terror, his critics scream that he's giving away the farm and opening our doors to terrorists.

And I suspect that his critics include in their anti-Bush tirade his opposition to Kyoto. This, of course, conveniently ignores that the entire United States Senate (well, 99 of them) signed a letter urging President Clinton to NOT sign that treaty. President Bush and the Republicans were hardly alone in fighting against that treaty.

As always, I dislike ideological consistency for its own sake. There are times to be globalist, and there are times to be isolationist, and there are times to be global unilateralists. The U.S. does not need to be striving for some beauty-contest-like prize of "most consistently X-ist".

Stop fighting against the President and tossing out epithets like "Orwellian". There's ample room for debate and discussion about particular policies without getting lost in political name-calling.

...it is isolationism in the sense that we are saying that we will worry about our own interests in our own ways and the hell with the rest of the world.

That's unilateralism, not isolationism, and they're still not synonyms. (This is not a comment on post substance. This is the Grammar Police. Come out with your nouns up....)

Also, the President's critics like to play a very fun game, hit him from both sides... When he sticks to his guns, we hear, "if he would just admit he was wrong and change his mind, then everything would be ok." Then, when he does adapt a different approach for a different problem, they claim that he is being "inconsistent". That takes extra special mendacity.

OK, Tully, I will concede your point on grammar.

Pat,

I don't see why characterizing the administration as Orwellian is "name calling." You can disagree with the characterization, but the tag is intended to describe what I consider to be their behavior. I'm not calling Bush supporters names or denigrating Republicans in general.

And I have never said that other administrations didn't have problems too. But the thrust here seems to be that characterizing Bush negatively is somehow partisan or name-calling. If I had not used the term "Orwellian" but had simply said that they tailor their words to fit their needs and then reverse them when necessary, would that have been acceptable?

And you are accusing ME of ideological inconsistency as if I can be blamed for everything Bush's critics say. I quite agree that rigid ideological consistency is wrong. But I don't see why you can't call an administration that completely changes the tenor of its policies after having bashed its critics for suggesting the same thing. I didn't see them suggesting that we should engage in multilateral diplomacy until AFTER we got bogged down in Iraq. I acknowledge that I am glad that the administration has changed; but it didn't change of its own accord, it changed because it didn't have any choice. And I resent them now accusing the American public of being isolationist when its their own policies that are to blame. (And I would say the same thing about Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech.)

I don't view the Presidents's recent statements against the dangers of isolationism as either new or inconsistent. He's talking primarily about trade policy and economics, IMO.

I don't think its inconsistent to view free trade and economic cooperation as crucial to our nation's health, and yet still take a hard line on, say, foreign policy and on environmental policies which could very arguably be harmful to our economic health.

And I don't think that one can credibly deny that policies restricting foreign ownership are isolationist or at least protectionist. (Again, for better or worse!)

To his critics, the internationalist approach is too little too late —

Here's the thing...whatever "internationalist" means, it's not going to be very good for America if it means losing sight of how our bread is getting buttered. Cooperation doesn't imply that we shouldn't stick up for our national interests.

Oh, and the editor/english major in me says that Orwellian is absolutely name-calling. It's an out and out pejorative of a literary reference. However, I don't think name-calling is always bad. Orwellian is a fine adjective, and I think it's Ok to use it so long as you support it. Clearly in this case Marc uses it in such a way that it's clear what his impressions are.

Still, I agree with Pat that neither unilateralism nor multilateralism is intrinsically superior, that policies can and should vary on that count, and that the Bush admin's policies have varied on that count. I fail to see the merit of absolute fealty to either as a principle. they are merely descriptive terms, not proof of good or evil.

Unilateralism and multilateralism (antonyms) are simply different approaches to specific actions. Tools. You use whichever tool is best for achieving whatever your goal is. Not every tool is right for every job. I don't put in screws with a hammer, I don't twist in nails with a screwdriver. If I have a project that requires both nails and screws, I'm gonna use more than one tool.

What they should not be, either one, is be-all end-all philosophies shaping national policy. They are approaches for achieving goals, not goals in and of themselves. To enshrine either one as more important in itself than the national self-interest they are used to advance is foolish. We can certainly prefer one to the other (I'd rather screw something down than nail it, given a choice) but both can work and have job-specific advantages.

[Footnote--Globalization is a strictly descriptive term for an ongoing process, much abused. It's not a philosophy. You can try to facilitate it, or slow it down, or take advantage of it, but it continues regardless. I'll leave internationalism and isolationism alone, save to note that the waters get deep fast in that swamp.]

As a globalist and internationalist in the broad sense of the word, I have been opposed to much of Bush's Foreign Policy until very recently.

I understand his position on Dubai and I agree, I'm somewhat mixed about India but I agree with general position he's coming from. But, in most matters concerning Al Quaeda, Iraq and Isreal, I've generally disagreed in a big way...my point of view being quite consistent in a position of cooperation, multilaterism, reaching across cultural divides and isolating terrorist elements.

I get angry when I hear partisan conservatives get all selectively uptight in defense of Bush's internationist and cooperative postions; not to mention watching their "outrage at losing face" with stories like the Newsweek scandal, while they get equally angry when people criticize his Iraq policy (and its greater implications to our standing in the Middle East) on the same grounds of cooperation and multilateraism.

You can't have it both ways my friends. Winning the hearts and minds of Muslims with part of the intent being the isolation of radical elements and the reshaping of the notions of whom one's enemy is needs to be consistent across all policies...not just those we choose for partisan positioning.

Brian,

If you consider referring to the Bush Administration as "Orwellian" is name calling, I will concede the point. However, I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate. If I referred to Bush personally as stupid or a fascist or something like that, I believe it would be inappropriate. I understand the historical and literary significance of the term and clearly I meant it as a perjorative. But it's really no different than, say calling the Democrats weak on defense and security, which no one seems to mind.

I certainly don't think that presidents should stick to one type of policy inflexibly. And I'm not against sticking up for American interests. But you have to admit that the administration's approach has changed considerably over time and largely, I think, in response to the problems it has encountered. Certainly, I am glad that it has learned or been forced to learn, some lessons. But I think it's fair to criticize the administration for locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. For the most part, the Administration eschewed the UN and other international institutions except when it needed to cover its actions; now it has decided these institutions are useful--after it has ruined our relationships with most of the world. Yes, I know, people here don't give a damn whether the French like us or not and, yes, anti-Americanism preceeded Bush. But I think the damage the administration's policies have done to our standing is significant and I think the Administration should have considered the consequences of its actions--but that would have meant actually thinking about what it did, for example, actually listening to people that knew something about Iraq.

If this is considered too partisan, I apologize, but I criticize Bush not from a Democratic perspective but from the perspective of someone that thinks this administration has been an utter disaster.

Marc,

"But I think it's fair to criticize the administration for locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. For the most part, the Administration eschewed the UN and other international institutions except when it needed to cover its actions; now it has decided these institutions are useful--after it has ruined our relationships with most of the world.... I think the Administration should have considered the consequences of its actions--."

Very well said. I agree 100%. Though I do think relations are quite repairable...if not still functional with most of our allies.

It is one thing to be a "UN-embracing cooperative internationlist" all the time and to a fault...ditto for an "anti-UN unilateral cowboy".

But to start with a position that resembles the latter with little regard for complications and consequences and then switch directions and pretend that the virtues and aims of the former were yours all along seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Being against Dubai (among other examples) hurts our position in the global community, not to mention the Middle East?? OK. What about Iraq (the DOOZY)? Not just the way we invaded but, more importantly, how we've handled the occupation? These sideshows may not help but this blunder of an Iraq policy is the elephant in the room in terms of America's damaged image, not the smaller stories that have grown out of it.

Marc, I thought I was pretty clear that I thought Orwellian was ok by me.

Bush's diplomatic practices (or lack therof) are what they are. I agree that he was impatient and autocratic, and that this may have damaged diplomatic relations. This would probably bother me a lot more if I felt that, by comparision, the UN and our various allies were acting in far more honorable and principled ways.

But I don't. Bush was acting in what he felt America's interests were, and France and Germany and some other members of the UN did not share our viewpoint. Our interests did not coincide. Oh well. That's show business. I am of the mind that when push comes to shove, America must reserve the sovereign right to act in the way that supports its interests as America/its leader perceives them to be.

I've maintained multiple times that I expected that after Iraq, we'd see a return to entertaining multilateral approaches. These approaches may well be informed by our recent display of our willingness to act unilaterally if necessary. I doubt that the diplomatic damage will be irreparable so long as we continue to be the world's preeminent military and economic superpower. When disgruntled allies return to the bargianing table, the first things discusses are always matters of mutual interest. That's how you play. Where mutual interests exist, alliance are not just possible, they're likely.

Utter disaster? Not if Iraq is a stable and relatively democratic nation 10 years from now. If it is, Bush goes down in history as a stubborn visionary who overcame an aversion to nation-building to turn the tide in democracy's favor. If that happens, he deserves that judgement. He laid down the dough and he rolled the dice. If, OTOH, Iraq 10 years from now is in civil disarray and dominated by warlords and clans, he'll go down as another American loose cannon who gave birth to an ill-conceived foreign misadventure. he might even come to be called "the last nation-builder."

BK,

When has nation building yielded positive results?
Leaving Germany and Japan out of the equation since I don't consider the circumstances in any way meaningfully related, where has it worked?

I cannot site one example of this yielding a long-term benefit.

Iraq and Isreal after world wars?? Ha. Not even close. Yugoslavia? How about trying to our helping install "friendly" rulers like in Iran or Central America? It all backfired left us with more problems than when we started.

Sure, we have hinesight of history, but shouldn't history tell us something??

Tully's "grammar police" posts really are about a lot more than just word choice. It goes to the heart of how many Americans and Europeans view "internationalism": that it is and, by definition, must be founded in the use of multilateral institutions and alliances. I won't speak for anyone in the Bush Administration, but I've personally always rejected that as a false premise.

There's always some inaccuracy inherent in using labels, but the reality is that one can be "internationalist" (i.e., engaged in foreign affairs) and "multilateral" (think Cold War America), and "internationalist" and "unilateral" (think the British Empire). Perhaps the greatest example of an 18th century statesmen of the former would be Karl von Mettenrich, while the latter would have to be Napoleon Bonaparte (and to a lesser extent, Tsar Alexander).

But one can be "multilateral" through the use of international institutions, and "multilateral" through the use of ad hoc conferences, organizations, and (dare I say it?) Coalitions of the Willing (which, by the way, originated under the Clinton Administration)? This position is not and cannot accurately be described as "isolationist."

I have found that many American liberals (and most Europeans) equate a position that does not utilize international organizations (especially the United Nations) as being automatically "isolationist." It's not. In fact, it much more closely resembles classical Realism-- pursuing the national interest through formal alliances, ad hoc coalitions, or going it alone based on which best suits the national interest.

The Bush Administration's policies have never been accurately described as "isolationist." Perhaps "anti-institutional, but still multilateral" at times (remember more European states support the war than voted against it...), and perhaps even "unilateral" at others, but it's not isolationist.

It is not inconsistent to eschew the U.N. when it adopts an approach which our national leaders judge insufficient to protect our national interest but to embrace the U.N. when its goals and ours align. Promotion of the U.N. in and of itself is not a national goal of the U.S.

That the President seeks to use the U.N. with Iran and North Korea while he could not simply accept the decision of the U.N. with regards to Iraq is not changing his mind or being "Orwellian". As Tully says, different tools for different needs. As Brian notes, the President, and Congress's, best judgment on Iraq at the time the decision had to be made was that U.N. action alone was insufficient to contain the threat to America posed by Saddam. To a lesser extent, there was also a shared (and obvious) view that the opposition on the U.N. by other countries (France, Germany, & Russia) was based not on any great principles but on their own economic self-interest, given their extensive commercial ties to Iraq. The U.N. Charter recognizes the soverignty of its member states and the fundamental right of self-protection of each of those members. It is NOT the ultimate judge of each nation's self-interest.

Had Germany and France been more willing to cooperate with us up front, presented a more united front with the U.S. over the need for Saddam to absolutely and unequivocably and without reservation comply with the demands of the U.N. and the inspection process, then perhaps a war would have been unnecessary. Instead, Germany and France made it very clear that they would NEVER vote for military action against Saddam.

Why do American critics of President Bush always seem to assume that other nations in the U.N. are voting on the basis of great principles and rationality, while the U.S. acts only out of selfish self-interest?

And by the way, I consider "Orwellian" to be a political insult about on the order of "Hitler-like". It's just not accurate in any way, shape, or form here.

What Bobby said. Remember when President Chirac of France remarked of the eastern European nations who supported the U.S., "they missed an excellent opportunity to remain silent".

Yeah, that showed real respect for the "international community".

Tully's "grammar police" posts really are about a lot more than just word choice.

Thank you for noticing! :-)

When has nation building yielded positive results? Leaving Germany and Japan out of the equation...

Heh. Talk about stacking the deck! Name one place it's worked, but no fair naming places where it's obviously worked! Israel may not be an earthly paradise--other than in comparison to its neighbors--but it sure seems to still be there as a nation, no thanks to anyone but the Israelis. Singapore is a "built" nation, and is doing quite well. Hell, our own Civil War is an example of nation-building. Last I looked, the South was still part of the United States.

There's quite a few other nations where colonialism has resulted in solid independent nations, even if that wasn't even remotely the original intent of the invader. I mention that because so many nowadays love to equate "nation building" with colonialism. That the "nation builder" did not leave as a loved figure, even got kicked out on their arses, does not make them any less "built" nations. India is a prime example.

There's also a lot of places where nation building has failed dismally, generally because the particular form of government being imposed was utterly alien to the culture, and because rampant tribalism/factionalism actively undermined any attempts at national unification. Can't win 'em all. But that doesn't mean you're doomed to lose 'em all.

My impression is that people will class various enterprises as nation-building or not depending on whether or not they want it to be a good thing.

Historically the US is among superpowers that have had occasion to have input into(meddle with) the affairs of other nations. Circumstances vary. I don't see any point in construing nation-building narrowly, so I'd include Japan and Germany. We deposed and reformed their governments. It worked out ok in large part because Germany and Japan were already nations in an important sense. We helped build them into what they've become, but we didn't create them. Israel is a western creation. The west created a sucessful modern western nation largely from scratch, even though it's despised by much of the middle east and is still a matter of contention. Created and built. Successfully IMO. By the west.

So IMO it works some time. When hasn't it? Vietnam, for one.

My view is it tends to work depending on whether you have a fairly unified people ready for it. Nation-ness is an emergent property, in other words. This does not mean it can't be fostered. You can lead a horse to water. You can't make him drink. But if he is thirsty and you promise him water, he may well follow you, and if you show him water, he'll usually drink it.

Of course, sometimes there's the problem that other people don't want the horse to drink. That makes things more complicated, but it doesn't diminish the relationship betwen thirst and drinking.

For that matter, compare Vietnam and North Korea today with South Korea.

Tully,

"Heh. Talk about stacking the deck! Name one place it's worked, but no fair naming places where it's obviously worked!"

It's not stacking the deck. Germany and Japan are very different. We were at war, they were defeated and could not be left to disintegrate from neglect. They were somewhat stable and unified countries who needed help and were ready, willing and able to accept our help. Note that not one US soldier was killed during the occupation of these countries. This says a lot. The nature of the occupation was totally different.

Now Iraq, Isreal and Yugoslavia were "forged by force" where there was no solid country. The results haven't been worth bragging about.

Our hostile interventions to change regimes and influence them to our liking (that does not mean democratic) haven't helped at all.

The Shah in Iran is an example. Going back to Wilson, our intervention in Latin America was NOT a selfless act to promote democracy, it was to install leaders who could control the populace and give us what we wanted. This never warms up the average Joe in these countries because they don't see an altruistic aim of spreading democracy, they see America saying one thing and doing another. Actions speak louder than words.

Besides, colonies that peacefully changed into countries is not not the concept I'm discussing. Plus, the world is much different now than in the days of the British Commonwealth.

In short, nation-building, done thru hostile interventions and coehersion does not have a good track record.

Pat,

Vietnam actually isn't as bad as you think these days. Tourism there is on the rise and they are generally a stable country. Besides, that wasn't Nation-Building, we were defending a willing defendant.

Same for South Korea, we were defending an invaded country. Ofcourse, it didn't hurt their cause that we had a vested interest in deterring Communism (same with Vietnam).

But notice that in both examples, we see countries forged by others with there own interests in mind. It didn't take long for hostilities to ensue,

You asked for fruit, but you only want to pick the cherries. Yeah, Germany and Japan are different. They worked, and you're trying to build up a universal definition where the primary exclusionary factor is success.

Besides, colonies that peacefully changed into countries is not not the concept I'm discussing. Plus, the world is much different now than in the days of the British Commonwealth.

Most of them did not change all that peacefully and also suffered "birthing pains" for wquite a while after their independence. The world is also much different now than it was in the 1940's--or earlier. Which would bring us back to exclusionary definitions. If you want to argue the broad case and universalities, you have to take ALL the examples. If you want to argue the narrow case, define it better.

Well, in Korea particularly, we divided a more-or-less existing country up with the Soviets across an arbitrary border, just as we did in Europe. And South Korea went through its share of "right wing" dictators which America supported under Cold War real politik, yet still in the end became a free democracy with a strong economy... unlike North Korea.

But to return to the subject of "nation building" as opposed to "state building" or "democracy creating" or "economy rebuliding", I agree that historically it hasn't worked all that well, as we see from the Middle East generally, as well as Yougoslavia, Czechoslovakia (which at least managed to disintegrate peacefully), and numerous other examples.

The question then becomes, though, are we "nation building" or doing something else in Iraq. As noted in the Wikipedia article, Iraq has had its modern borders and population since 1920, and in fact the northern, central, and southern regions (Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra) were centrally administered from Baghdad for 3 out of 4 centuries of Ottoman rule. It has a national identity which well predates the British mandate period post-WWI. We are not forcing together disparate groups who had never previously been governed under the same state before. As we have seen from those, including al Sadr, who are working to keep the country together, there are many people there who consider themselves "Iraqis" first and Shiites or Sunnis second. They may not be as cohesive a nation with as deep a "national" history as Japan or Germany, but they have much more than, say, Yugoslavia.

I think there's no point denying that multi-ethnic or multi-national states are indeed far less stable and far more susceptible to political collapse and internal violence than homogeneous ones-- history weighs in too heavily on that one (at least so far).

But that's not the same thing as saying that multi-national states can't be forged from scratch (India and Nigeria being two examples), that they can't emerge from years/centuries of violence (Canada and Belgium, for example), or that they're necessarily fated to break apart a la Yugoslavia.

The key is to develop identity groups that cut across national, ethnic, or religious lines (one of the reasons that we were so excited to see ideological fissures developing in Afghanistan) and to develop progress in the country so that even its most disaffected members are relatively satisfied with the state of affairs when compared to revolution. When the Basques come to see their identity more like the way Catalonians see theirs, then the centrifugal forces will be defeated.

It's a large bill, to be sure, but it's not impossible, and we have some outstanding men and women in Iraq that are working to make it a reality.

Tully,

I think most people exclude Japan and Germany from lists of successful nation building because both of those countries were already nations. I mean both countries had parliaments and had some experience with democratic institutions, extremely homogeneous populations, and a sense of “national identity”. Both were developed industrialized countries that participated in world trade with no substantial sectarian division.

So if you want to include them then you have to heavily qualify what is required for “nation building” to work. You have to admit that in the past, nation building has only worked when you start with a country that has had some experience with representative government, homogenous cultures with a strong sense of national identity, an industrialized economy with international trade ties, and no substantial sectarian division. None of which you can say about Iraq or Afghanistan. This also doesn’t even address that fact that the leadership of those countries both surrendered unconditionally in a conventional war.

This is why I roll my eyes anytime someone mentions Japan and Germany as example of “nation building” that “works”. Why anyone would use this as an argument to support the idea that “nation building” could work in Iraq is puzzling at best. At worst, it’s a sophistic distraction from a more substantive discussion on the likelihood of the success of such an initiative in Iraq.

Rick, I disagree about your claim of "sophistic distraction." Essentially you are claiming that anyone who cites Japan and Germany can be presumed to have the motive of confusing people. That's insulting. I simply want to look at all cases, and that's all Tully wants to do.

IMO, if all we have is "nation-buiding" as meaning to build up a nation, then we should do a no free-lunch examination of all cases which might apply, compare the ones that work and the ones that did't, and look for patterns. I don't see anyone here saying that "We built Japan and Germany, therefore, we know for certan that we can build Iraq in our democratic image."

Clearly there is a mixed record, and clearly there are patterns to the successes and failures. It makes sense to examine both so that we can do our best to give our current its best chance. I agree wholeheartedly with Bobby. there are reasons to think that Iraq presents greater challenges in some respects than Germany and Japan. There's no point in denying that. But IMO there is also little point in trying to narrowly define nation-building to exclude all successes, and then to use that as proof that we've got no shot in Iraq and that it was therefore utter madness to try it.

I look at the constellation of episodes and see that Iraq is a greater challenge, but that there are reasons to hope we can meet this greater challenge. Germany and Japan were not picnics. They were in fact hostile invasions where we coerced the populace. And I say that while agreeing with John that attempted nation-building done via hostile invasion and coercion is a tough nut to crack. And I agree a heterogenous population decreases the probability of success.

So my opinion of nation-building is that its difficult and costly enough that we should seek to avoid it. But I notice that there have been some cases where it has succeeded. So we should make the rare choice to intervene on the basis of how badly we think things will go for us should we refrain from trying. That makes Bush's choice a defensible gamble.

Disclosure time for John and Rick: when GWB said he was against nation-building as a candidate for the Presidency, did you think "this is a wise man who understands foreign policy?" I thought he was an idiot to say such a thing. As more of a liberal at that younger age, I thought he was foolish to suggest that his admin would lean towards domestic navel-gazing, and tend to let despots do as they pleased. I found it to be a fundamental betrayal of what America stands for. So I'm glad he changed his mind.

So if you want to include them then you have to heavily qualify what is required for “nation building” to work.

No, I don't. You have it precisely backwards. If someone wants to make broad statements about nation-building but exclude those two, they are, as I put it, stacking the deck. I repeat--if you want to argue the broad case, you have to consider ALL the evidence. Picking and choosing your evidence to fit your conclusion is bad reasoning at best.

Now, if you want to argue the narrow case, just nation-building in Iraq for example, fine. But you still need the succesful examples for evidentiary contrast, and you still need to narrowly and explicitly define your terms. Broad sweeping hyperbole is NOT going to cut it. Please note that I have NOT said that Germany and Japan are evidence that nation-building will work in Iraq. What they are is evidence that the prevailing heterodoxy in some quarters, that nation building is always a loser and will always fail, is simply flat-out wrong. Which is why so many would like to exclude those two nations from the equation.

You have to admit that in the past, nation building has only worked when you start with a country that has had some experience with representative government, homogenous cultures with a strong sense of national identity, an industrialized economy with international trade ties, and no substantial sectarian division.

I don't have to admit any such thing, because in the broad historical case it's simply not true. Those are certainly facilitating success factors, but they are not at all neccessarily exclusionary factors. As I have pointed out, "nation building" in the historical sense often succeeded without them. It often succeeded despite attempts by colonizing nations to prevent independent nations from forming.

Since the same heterodoxy that proclaims nation-building can't possibly work also equates nation-building with colonialism, colonial examples are quite relevant. You'll find that many of the nations resulting from colonialism started without any of those success factors in their favor, but developed some or all of them during colonial occupation, learning from the occupiers and demanding equality and parity and their own right to self-determination.

You're sitting in one of those nations.

"Why do American critics of President Bush always seem to assume that other nations in the U.N. are voting on the basis of great principles and rationality, while the U.S. acts only out of selfish self-interest?"

Pat,

I never assumed that other countries ever act on the basis of principle. I'm quite aware that France and Germany both had commercial interests that influenced their view of US actions. But so what? Are you saying the US acted purely on the basis of principle? That there was no self-interest involved? Bush supporters seem to assume that the US is altruistic and other countries are selfish bastards. That's always been the US perspective and it continues to get us in trouble. The rest of the world does not perceive us as acting on principle any more than we think France and Germany were.

I will defend my use of the term "Orwellian." It's not saying Bush is Hitler (or, more accurately, Stalin); it's a term commonly used to refer to double talk and deceit. Obviously, we are going to disagree on whether this administration is Orwellian--I think it is, that doesn't mean I think it is Hitler or Stalin-like.

Tully and others,

I acknowledge that I used the terms globalist, internationalism, isolationism, etc, loosely. But the point I was trying to get across is that Bush eschewed international institutions--not as a tactical matter, but as a matter of principle--under the belief that the US need not care about the opinions and interests of the rest of the world. To me, that's isolationism even if it's not the strict dictionary definition. I never said and don't believe that the US should never act unilaterally or that multilateralism is always the preferred method. But I do believe that a country that talks about spreading universal principles around the world ought to engage with the world community--however flawed it undoubtedly is--rather than simply picking and choosing its forums because it has the power to do so. That's called leadership. Bush, however, simply wants compliant allies that follow our lead blindly and will accept our agendy according to our own interests. IMO, that's not leadership and it is (a form of) isolationism.

Now, I think Bush has learned and the policy has changed. But our credibility has been shot. People are reluctant to follow us on Iran and North Korea because they don't trust our leadership and ability to exercise effective diplomacy. Regardless of what we think about Bush's policies, it's clear that the European public strongly dislike them and any politician has to be careful about actually lining up with the US. As an aside, I think Bush's father--who actually knew what he was doing and had competent advisers with a realistic view of the world--would not have alienated most of the world and would have been far more effective at dealing with these crises.

The issue with nation building is that you obviously have to look at context. Bush's statements during the campaign, IMO, were made in the context of attacking Clinton's policies of intervening in the Balkans. They assumed that we would have a lower presence so that nationbuilding would not be necessary. Obviously, however, if you are intervening in various places, nation building is necessary--although the adminstration originally tried to avoid this in Afghanistan and clearly did not plan for it in Iraq. Nation building is obviously difficult and if you adopt a policy that is consciously built on regime change and nation building,you ar opening up a can of worms. But at this point, we have no choice.

Marc, I still can't accept that you are justified in calling the President's current arguments "Orwellian". It is not inconsistent to say that we value, even value highly, multilateral institutions and diplomatic processes, while reserving the right to act unilaterally should the multilateral processes fail to produce results which our leaders believe are necessary to adequately protect our national interest.

As folks on this forum have made clear repeatedly in arguing about the "fear-mongering" that they claim President Bush engaged in during the run-up to the war and the aftermath of 9/11, the public is not very good at distinguishing nuances and subtleties of what the President says. Occasionally, that may mean that a President must speak more bluntly about any given situation than is completely accurate (or focus on one particular national value at a time), simply to make sure that the bottom line policy for the particular decision being made is understood. That shifting nuances create a need to focus on other priorities and other values to deal with other crises does not make the whole process "Orwellian".

You still haven't pointed out why the President's adapting different techniques to deal with different problems is somehow "double talk and deceit".

But the point I was trying to get across is that Bush eschewed international institutions--not as a tactical matter, but as a matter of principle--under the belief that the US need not care about the opinions and interests of the rest of the world.

France and Germany loved our foreign policy when our foreign policy was to defer to them. When that changed, so did their "love" of us. But how long did we spend begging them to help? Regime change was an official policy of the US long before Bush reached the White House.

The invasion was "unilateral" only in that it did not defer to the vehement opposition of a few nations--nations that were profiting handsomely from the situation as it was, and stood to profit immensely more if Iraq was not invaded. Nations that had themselves been violating the sanctions they voted for. Bush was "unilateral" in that he did not grant those nations a veto on American actions to enforce what those nations had agreed to enforce on one hand, and refused to honor on the other. Should we list out all those Security Council resolutions again? Beginning in August of 1990?

And the several dozen nations that joined the US in support of the invasion kind of make that "unilateral" claim suspect, no? Going it alone is unilateralism. Taking the lead in a multinational coalition is not.

The idea that we should always defer to the UN or other nations is indeed internationalism, the subordination of our national interests to a "higher authority." I don't accept the UN as a higher authority. I don't accept France and Germany as higher authorities. I don't accept the proposition that we should reflexively defer to their self-interests for purposes of "credibility"--especially when their credibility, their willingness to abide by their own agreements in a matter, has been shown to be non-existent. And I don't accept psychic readings of internal beliefs as valid characterizations. It smacks of pre-emptive dismissal of all other possible reasoning and explanation.

Bk said...
I doubt that the diplomatic damage will be irreparable so long as we continue to be the world's preeminent military and economic superpower. When disgruntled allies return to the bargianing table, the first things discusses are always matters of mutual interest. That's how you play. Where mutual interests exist, alliance are not just possible, they're likely.

I agree with bk's statement. I never accepted the idea of how Iraq would completely ruin our rep. In many Pew poll interviews, many people are able to discern activities by Bush and don't see it as permanent or endemic to America. Also, after W. was re-elected many governments that were against the war and reluctant to deal with W., came back to the table. I believe that with the next election, it will almost be surreal, as it will be an almost clean slate

Tully,

You always accuse others of misinterpreting your arguments, but you are doing the same thing with mine. I never said we should "always defer" to the UN or other nations. That seems to always be the argument against any objection to Bush's approach to the world. I simply said (or intended to say)that we should consider the broader interests of the international community--which in the long run might also be our interests--in making policy. During the Cold War, the US certainly took actions of which other countries did not approve, but we also considered the interests of other countries and did not simply ram our policies through. That's not to say that we put foreign interests above our own, but to recognize that living in an international community requires more than a shortsighted pursuit of self-interest at the expense of everyone else. I think even Henry Kissinger would acknowledge that. As for France and Germany being hypocrites, that's true, but I suspect we can find example of the US being hypocritical as well. For example, the US apparently knew that smuggling was going on during the Food for Oil program but chose not to stop it because we wanted to maintain good relations with some of those countries. So, spare me the moral righteousness of the Bush Administration.

I simply don't accept your contention that, because France and Germany were profiting from dealing with Iraq, that their positions were automatically wrong. It seems to me (although I know you disagree here) that France was correct--it would have made more sense to let the UN inspectors continue. Of course, if you think that we needed to invade Iraq under any circumstances and that WMD was just a convenient excuse, then I guess you are right about not letting France and Germany stand in the way.

You objected to my use of internationalism, globalism, isolationism,etc.,but you seem to be using the term unilateral pretty restrictively. I guess you are technically correct if you argue that having more than one country in favor makes it multilateral. But the US invaded Iraq without a UN resolution supporting the action and it was clear that Bush was going to do so whether Britain or anyone else supported it. I call that unilateral. Now, maybe that's ok, but call it what it is.

Look, I recognize that ultimately this all gets down to whether you support the war of don't. If you do, then pretty much anything Bush does is acceptable and it's ok to ignore any dissenting voices.

Pat,

How about justifying the war on the basis of WMD and then, when finding no WMD, justifying it on the basis of spreading democracy?

Marc, your first paragraph implies that President Bush and those in support of the war did NOT "consider the broader interests of the international community". There is a difference between considering those interests, even granting them substantial weight, and defering to him. Show me the evidence that President Bush never considered them or gave them substantial weight. You seem to be implicitly accepting the allegation that President Bush had decided on war with Iraq, come hell or high water. I believe he waited substantial periods of time, allowing the enemy to become more and more prepared to fight us, precisely and solely to give France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the U.N. an opportunity to resolve the matter and to demonstrate to the rest of the world Saddam's intransigence. That is considering the opinions of the world, though not ultimately defering to them.

As for the justification, President Bush never made the war all about WMD. I was paying attention when the case was being made, but it seems very few others bothered to listen to more than the first sentence or two. Look at his speeches and, more importantly, look (as Tully has linked to innumerable times in many versions of this debate) at the resolution adopted by Congress authorizing the war. No nation goes to war for just one reason. There are many, many reasons. Everybody who tries to say "it was all about oil" or "it was all about WMD" is just wrong. Those were factors. Saddam's crimes against humanity were factors. Saddam's proven history of aggresive war was a factor. Promoting democracy in an oppressed region of the world was a factor. You can't point your finger at just one and say THAT was the whole justification.

If you want to be against the war, fine. That's certainly your right, and there are rational grounds to support that point of view. But there's no need to make it personal about President Bush and declare that there's something "Orwellian" about him when you simply disagree with his decision.

You objected to my use of internationalism, globalism, isolationism,etc.,but you seem to be using the term unilateral pretty restrictively.

I object to you using the wrong words, because poor usage obscures, even destroys any inherent meaning and turns it into a rant. I use unilateral restrictively because it's a very restrictive word. "Uni" means "one." "Multi" means "many." "Unilateral" is clearly false to fact in this case.

I simply said (or intended to say)that we should consider the broader interests of the international community--which in the long run might also be our interests--in making policy. [emph mine]

I can't respond to what you intended to say, only to what you actually said. Otherwise, what Pat said.

But the US invaded Iraq without a UN resolution supporting the action and it was clear that Bush was going to do so whether Britain or anyone else supported it. I call that unilateral.

It may be entirely correct that we would have gone it alone, but it's not a given and we did NOT go it alone. Thus, it's not "unilateralism."

There were fourteen UN resolutions supporting action against Iraq, dating back to August 1990. The UN declined to enforce them, and some members and even the UN itself facilitated Iraq in violating them. In particular, France, Germany, and Russia on the Security Council refused to enforce them, actively assisted Iraq in violating them, and even cut deals with Iraq that promised them greater rewards if they could get them dropped. So why in the hell should we defer to them? That's not "eschewing international insititutions," it's a rejection of international hypocrisy directly impeding our national interest. Under the kindest interpretation, FG & R were acting in what they considered to be their own national self-interest, eschewing international institutions other than as a means to that end. Why is it OK when they do that, but not OK when we do that?

Look, I recognize that ultimately this all gets down to whether you support the war of don't. If you do, then pretty much anything Bush does is acceptable and it's ok to ignore any dissenting voices.

And I REALLY object to the lumping together of everyone who disagrees with you as groupthinking robots. If only for what the corollary implies about those on the anti-war side--that for those who don't support the war anything Bush does is unacceptable and it's OK to demonize any dissenting voices. That may be a good description of the rabid wings, but what about the rest of us? If it's truly a universal descriptor, as you imply, we don't need to argue about it at all, do we?

I honestly do get your point, Marc, as best I understand it after interpreting your terms. And I understand the frustration. I just don't find approach inconsistency in pursuit of the national interest to be something damnworthy. I don't see anything puzzling about using a hammer for nails and a screwdriver for screws. And while we should always consider our actions in light of all factors, when it comes to prioritizing those considerations, the national interest reigns.

As far as globalization goes, that's an ongoing socio-economic evolution that continues no matter what we do. We can't hold back the tide--all we can do is grab a surfboard and work hard for a good ride.

Marc,

I would point out one thing you noted,

I guess you are technically correct if you argue that having more than one country in favor makes it multilateral. But the US invaded Iraq without a UN resolution supporting the action and it was clear that Bush was going to do so whether Britain or anyone else supported it. I call that unilateral.

The Clinton Administration also invaded a sovereign state in 1998-- the air war against Serbia that we refer to loosely as "Kosovo"-- without a UN mandate. Would that also be considered "unilateral"? Or was the fact that he had his own "Coalition of the Willing" (unbeknownst to most Americans, President Clinton was actually the first to use that term; Bush merely adopted it) somehow more multilateral because it included France and Germany? Before you answer, you should probably now that that Clinton's "Coalition of the Willing" in Kosovo was actually smaller than the one Bush lined up to support Iraq (although you won't hear that from the pundits).

Like so many aspects of the American political tradition, the full spectrum really isn't being debated here-- what we see as a difference in "unilateral" or "multilateral" in a broader sense is really just a debate about the extent of preference. Perhaps the Clintonites might have been more likely than Bushites to work through multilateral institutions, but both made it absolutely clear that they would only do so when they supported American interests, and that they would have no problems bypassing those same institutions, if and when the occasion called for it.

Seen in that light, and when compared to truly "unilateral" (think Napoleon) and "multilateral" (think Metternich) statesmen, it's hard to craft a definition that would make Bush "unilateral," while classifying Clinton as "multilateral." They are both-- as is so often the case in America-- somewhere in the middle with varying doses of both.

Seen in that light, and when compared to truly "unilateral" (think Napoleon) and "multilateral" (think Metternich) statesmen, it's hard to craft a definition that would make Bush "unilateral," while classifying Clinton as "multilateral." They are both-- as is so often the case in America-- somewhere in the middle with varying doses of both.

C'mon Bobby, don't be such a turd in the punchbowl. :-) That's just like a centrist, always ruining a perfectly jolly partisan "tastes great-less filling" battle. See, if you don't think about such issues, you can win the argument about multilateral vs. unilateral just by marshalling more volume for your side.

I'm frustrated because it seems impossible to criticize Bush without being subjected to deconstructionism that would make Jacque Derrida proud.

First, I don't consider my comments about the Administration to be "personal" attacks on Bush. It's a characterization--admittedly harsh--on what I consider it's behavior. It has nothing to do with Bush personally.

Second, Bobby's comment assumes that, by criticizing Bush, I am implicitly defending Clinton. I don't think I have ever said anything in any of my comments that suggest that I agree (or disagree) with Clinton's foreign policy. The assumption is, obviously, that I am a partisan Democrat--the worst crime apparently--and therefore, I think everything Clinton did was correct. I agree that bombing Kosovo was largely unilateral, but I do think that having our major allies aboard (whatever you think about them) does make a difference. I also think that a lot f the members of Bush's coalition of the willing signed on for reasons other than they thought the war was a good idea, e.g, they did not want to get on the wrong side of the US. Certainly, the publics did not support the war. For the record, with respect to Clinton, for the most part, I think he had no idea what he was doing in foreign policy--he was bellicose when he should have been conciliatory and conciliatory when he should have been bellicose. I thought Madeline Albright was not a particularly good Secretary of State and I thought her comment about America being the indispensable nation was needlessly provoactive. Frankly, though, it's irrelevant to me what Clinton did--he's not president any more.

I have tried to make it clear that I have no problem with adopting different methods for different situations. And, as I have tried to state, I don't think any American president should orhas blindly followed teh UN or any other international institution. But, at least in the initial stages of his presidency--including the post-9/11 part--it seems to me that Bush largely disdained any kind of cooperation with the international community except on his own terms. To me, that was a mistake. It seems to me--and obviously no one else agrees with this--that Bush squandered an opportunity when he had enormous good will from the world after 9/11.

Pat,

I can't show you "evidence" that Bush did not consider the interests of the international community. All I can say is that it is my impression and that of a lot of analysts (granted, probably anti-Bush so they don't count). As for the Bush Administration not having decided on war with Iraq up front, I must respectfully disagree from everything I have read (again, recognizing that you likely don't give much credence to journals and news media that criticize Bush.) As for giving Iraq time to build up, it's not like it was the Red Army.

I certainly did not mean to imply that pro-war supporters were mindless robots or anything like that. I have, I think, tried hard to avoid making generalizations likel that. That was really more a statement of fact. From what I can see on this blog, people that supported the war in general are more favorably disposed to Bush's international and security policies in general than those that don't. It's obvious (to me anyway) that people evaluate "facts" differently according to their initial predilections. In that sense, people on both sides are simply like two ships passing in the night--we are simply talking past each other.

I respect people on this blog and, if people think I was unfair, I am sorry. Obviously, a lot of the criticism is directed toward my loose use of language and that's my fault and, comes in part, from writing too quickly.

Marc, a lot of the intense reaction from this side of the fence, I think, stems precisely from so often seeing criticism of the war framed in very emotional, judgmental language such as you used in your initial post. Just as a matter of human nature, when someone says "that was the stupidest decision ever", the response "well, it's a tough call one way or the other, but here's why I come down in favor of that decision" is not one you can reasonably expect. Strong attacks are met with strong defenses.

I think there are certainly reasonable criticisms which can be brought against both the conduct of the war (though I blame most of that on institutional problems of the Army) and the decision to go to war at all. It's just that most of the criticism I've seen seems to focus on the case which critics claim President Bush made for the war rather than the more impersonal question of whether the war can be justified under any grounds.

In other words, the criticism is of President Bush, not the war. Personally, I support President Bush (big shocker there, I know). I try hard to support and defend public officials generally, and give them the benefit of the doubt even when I don't agree with them. They have hard jobs and must make crucial decisions which impact the lifes of hundreds or thousands or millions of people based on imperfect information which will be instantly second-guessed by reporters and opposing party members and others who have even less information and who don't believe the information held by the public officials could possibly be imperfect.

Did President Bush squander a wealth of international good will in the aftermath of 9/11 by going after Iraq? I don't think that question can ever be definitively answered. Personally, I think that France and Germany (the leading Western critics of the war) had not, and may still not, truly understand the nature of Islamofascist terrorism, even after 9/11. Since 9/11, we have seen the Madrid bombing, the London bombing, and rioting and other violence by Islamic radicals throughout Europe. And we see that the newest German leader ran, in part, on a campaign of repairing relations with America. I think Europe is getting a better picture of our adversaries, and that is making us look more right in their eyes. Had Madrid and London happened before the Iraq war, European sentiment might have been different.

We will never agree on this; frankly, it's an unknowable question as to what "might have been."

I too typically have more sympathy for people that actually have to make decisions than for people that simply carp. No doubt, the Administration had incredibly tough decisions to make after 9/11 even if I disagree with the ones they made.

It's clear that people can agree on particular facts, but still not agree on the interpretation of those facts. Pat, I think you and I agree on the danger of Islamic terrorism but obviously disagree both on the proper response and on the proper role of diplomacy in general.

In all honesty, I thought this blog was becoming increasingly one-sided with respect to the Administration's policy on Iraq and security. I intentionally wanted to post something from the other side.

I really hope people don't see me as some intensely partisan Democrat. I'm not--I'm skeptical of any received wisdom, including that of the antiwar left. I certainly recognize the use of power in international relations. But I think we should recognize it for what it is. I am also skeptical of "crusades" for democracy or anything else that, whatever their original motives, can end up providing a mask for unbridled use of power. And that is true regardless of who is in office.