bryiarrose | she's so unusual

i keep surprising myself by caring and reading about politics, let alone wanting to post on the subject. at any rate, i present you with two links off of my friends list this morning that i found terribly interesting.

the first came from neil's post. tacked right at the end, was this link to the political compass. take the test, if nothing else it's interesting in how it makes you think about your own beliefs and values, and it's kind of fun to see how you plot out against various political figures, as well as the link to composers' political compasses. i ended up literally smack dab in the middle of the libertarian left. probably not a big surprise, but interesting none the less. it makes me wonder where the rest of my friends would end up.

secondly,

bellyfish pointed me towards this article from the weekend australian about the mess bush has made. it was just what i needed to read this morning after seeing cnn's juvenile headline: "u.s.: 'we got him.'" which makes me cringe, for more reasons than the possible decline of the u.s. news media.

The path of least resistance

by Phillip Adams

13dec03

In his memoir, A World Transformed, George Bush Snr explained why he hadn’t sent his troops storming into Baghdad. "Trying to eliminate Saddam . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible . . . we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq . . . there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles.

"Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

As many have observed, it’s a pity his son can’t read.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr, who was special assistant to president John F. Kennedy, puts it simply: "President George W. Bush has made a fatal change in the foreign policy of the United States. He has repudiated the strategy that won the Cold War – the combination of containment and deterrent carried out through such multilateral agencies as the UN, NATO and the Organisation of American States. The Bush doctrine reverses all that. The essence of our new strategy is to strike a potential enemy, unilaterally if necessary, before he has a chance to strike us."

The combination of containment and deterrence was initiated half a century ago by Harry S. Truman and confirmed as bi-partisan policy by Dwight Eisenhower. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Snr and Clinton pursued it. "During the long years of the Cold War," says Schlesinger, "preventative war was unmentionable.

Its advocates were regarded as loonies."

As early as the war with Mexico in 1846-48, Abraham Lincoln expressed disapproval of preventative war. "Allow the President to invade a neighbouring nation wherever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose … If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent. I see it, if you don’t.’"

Kennedy would deplore the Bush doctrine. "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient," he wrote. "We are only 6 per cent of the world’s population – we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 per cent of mankind."

Yet that is what Bush is attempting to do. He makes no secret of it. It’s there in black and white. And, increasingly, in blood. By using the events of 9/11 as an excuse for ripping up the rule book, Bush has made the world a far, far more dangerous place.

For one of the finest analyses of this ominous development, listen to – or read – Owen Harries’ magisterial 2003 Boyer Lectures. Neither neo-Con nor Palaeo-Con, Harries is a classic Conservative with a vast knowledge of diplomatic history, and his criticism of both Bush and John Howard is profound. Not that Bush’s boots-and-all approach is playing well. As Harries reminds us, for the first time since the end of World War II the US "found itself unable to put together a credible international coalition to support a major initiative. Nor, despite a maximum effort, was it able to produce anything close to a simple majority on the Security Council . . . France and Germany took the lead in expressing widespread international opposition to US policy, and in asserting the importance of international laws, norms of behaviour and the legitimising role of the United Nations".

This column has previously discussed the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the White House in September 2002. Here is its essence: "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the US can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversary’s choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first." In June 2002, Bush rejected containment and deterrence. "We must take the battle to the enemy . . . the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."

Schlesinger remembers Kennedy’s response to the threat of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. The joint chiefs of staff recommended removing the missiles by preventative attack and Robert Kennedy called the idea "Pearl Harbor in reverse . . . For 175 years we have not been that kind of country." As Schlesinger says, "President Bush would like to make us that kind of country today." He remembers Franklin D. Roosevelt’s observation that Pearl Harbor was an exploit "that would live in infamy". Now he warns that the same tactic is "fine when employed by the United States".

To make matters worse, the preventative strategy was based on either grossly flawed intelligence or outright lies. Or a combustible mixture of both.

Think of it. Australia, with its tiny population, now endorses pre-emptive war. We are one of the three countries that fought the history-making, law-breaking example. Saddam Hussein has gone. But so has sanity in international affairs. And our prime minister has made us party to the madness.

***

not that i've said much, but that is probably enough political babble from me for the moment. i'll go back to wishing america could retroactively extract itself from bush, or at least hoping we'll be able to do just that as soon as possible.