Bush-Maliki Bottom Line: “Accelerating”
It’s midnight and I’m watching the Bush-Maliki press conference live from Amman on CNN.
The bottom line in the words of Bush: “We’re gonna stay in Iraq until the job is done, as long as the Iraqi government wants us there.”
It’s the same-old-same-old. We stand down when the Iraqis stand up. Now the new word, repeated nearly a dozen times by both presidents is “accelerating” that process.
But no timetables, of course. Who could be in hurry given that experts estimate there are no more than 10,000 combat-ready Iraqi army troops, a small fraction of what the sectarian militias can field.
Vietnamization anyone?
November 30th, 2006 at 7:26 am
I wonder if Bush reads Foreign Affairs? If he does, he could read this issues featured article in which Richard Haass blames Bush’s decision to invade Iraq for effectively ending a decades-long era of “unprecedented US influence,… primacy…and freedom to act” in the middle east.
The writing is on the wall for George II, his place in history already being clearly defined as a bumbling bufoon of a president.
Unfortunately, Bush probably thinks he can salvage some dignity by staying the course. The lives of hundreds of US troops, and thousands of Iraqis will be wasted in his futile efforts..
November 30th, 2006 at 8:20 am
By “acceleration”, they might mean “kick in the ass”. There’s a theory that the Hadley memo was leaked on purpose by Bush & Co, because it’s basically a list of things the administration will try to to for Maliki if Maliki proves he can meet them halfway, but at the same time a very undiplomatic way of saying that trust hasn’t been established yet. But Maliki probably can’t stretch very far, even if he wants to — he’s on a leash, and the other end of it is being held by whoever holds the leashes on the Shi’ite death squads.
The Sadrist parliamentary boycott in supposed protest of Maliki’s meeting with Bush is thought to be mere Kabuki — with Bush squeezing Maliki, the walkout makes it look like there’s more daylight between the Sadrists and Maliki than there really is. It “takes pressure off him”, in the words of one Kurdish legislator, just as pressure is coming at him from the opposite direction.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Neoconservatives and the Dilemmas of Strategy and Ideology, 1992-2006
In all the discussions of neoconservative foreign policy that have taken place over the past couple of years — some more informed than others, some more disapproving that others — there is one abiding perception that seems to unite critics and proponents alike: that a neoconservative foreign policy is distinct from other strands of conservatism because of its emphasis on democracy promotion and that, in fact, exporting democracy for strategic and moral reasons — and through hard power if necessary — is one of the central defining purposes of contemporary second generation neoconservatism.
This paper will challenge the dominant view that neoconservatism prioritises democracy promotion. It will examine the nature of the neoconservative foreign policy strategy articulated during the 1990s — which, it is argued, has been widely misinterpreted — and will discuss the strategic and ideological tensions inherent within the strategy. Though the George W. Bush administration has not followed a neoconservative strategy in every respect, his administration has been strongly influenced by it and so some of these strategic and ideological tensions have also emerged since 9/11. It is my belief that the central cause of this tension is that the most important priority of the neoconservative strategy has always been to preserve the post-cold war ‘unipolar moment’ by perpetuating American pre-eminence and this clashes with the purported emphasis on democratization. The strategy also risks imperial overstretch and, for the most part, it fails to consider matters that are not state-based economic or state-based military issues.
At the end of the cold war, the first generation of neoconservatives that had emerged in the early seventies, was replaced by a second, younger generation that began to gravitate around the idea of American unipolarism.1 (This is the group that will be the subject of our discussion here.) It is important to clarify from the beginning that although this younger group was organised and led primarily by neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, it was not their exclusive domain; rather it was a mix of neocons and other conservatives, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who all shared a vision of a unipolar America, a vision of global dominance. Gary Dorrien refers to this group collectively as “unipolaristsâ€.2 In the main, neocons were the most important organisers and theorists within this network, but their ideas enjoyed some wider support.3 How much of a difference there, in fact, is between neocons and their other conservative sympathisers is an issue we will return to.
In terms of strategy, this group embraced the concept of unipolarism.4 At the end of the Cold War, American found itself, to use Charles Krauthammer’s famous phrase, in a “unipolar†position. It no longer had to accept the existence of a competing superpower, so rather than following a defensive strategy, like the one put forward by the first generation of neocons in the 70s, the US could now project power offensively to shape the world and construct an American imperium.5
This was captured in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance document, written for then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, by staffers Zalmay Khalilzad and Lewis Libby, who worked for the undersecretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz.6 In contrast to the first generation of neocons, they now had the freedom to develop a strategy that rejected coexistence with any rival power and actively sought to prevent the emergence of a new competitor. This was the essence of the neoconservative strategy that was built upon by their think tanks and advocacy groups during the nineties.
In preventing the emergence of a rival power, Washington would be constructing — in the words of Kristol and Kagan —-a “benevolent global hegemonyâ€.7 While this would not solve every problem in the world, American hegemony would be better than any conceivable alternative. Joshua Muravchik wrote in 1992 of “the soothing effect†of American power because it could maintain order in the world and reassure those feeling threatened by other states.8 Moreover, according to Kristol and Kagan, “most of the world’s major powers†“welcome…and prefer†American hegemony to any other alternative because they are much better off under Washington’s tutelage since it looks after their interests too9 and thus discourages them from seeking to challenge American power.
According to most of the neoconservatives, the “benevolence†of this “empire†— to use Kagan’s words — was assured by the fact that moral ideals and national interest almost always converge.10 What is good for American preponderance is, de facto, good both morally and strategically for most of the rest of the world too. As Wolfowitz wrote in Spring 2000: “Nothing could be less realistic than… the ‘realist’ view of foreign policy that dismisses human rights as an important tool of American foreign policy.â€11
More:
Neoconservatives and the Dilemmas of Strategy and Ideology, 1992-2006 [pdf]
November 30th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“Waist deep in the Big Muddy
and the big fool says to keep on!”
– Pete Seeger
November 30th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Or, from the other side of things, check out:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009312
It’s interesting, all the comparisons to Vietnam. While we perhaps could/should have done Vietnam better/differently, including not abandoning and refusing to supply the S Vietnamese after we ended our direct involvement, such that the Communists were able to conquer, something they had been unable to do before, leading to great suffering in S Vietnam (can you say, ‘boat people’? sure you can), in fact we ‘won’ in Vietnam, if by ‘won’ you mean ‘bled the Communists dry and stopped them in Vietnam so that all of SE Asia, plus Australia, were not conquered’. Probably one of the reasons the Aussies are more willing to acknowledge the real threat global Islam presents is because they have been faced with a similar threat on their doorstep in the past.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Oh why bother?
So Victor Davis Hansen, an alleged “Classicist” says we’re losing our nerve. I wonder if he can say “Syracusian Expedition”? Honestly where did he get his degree?
But Doc is useful because he lets people here know what will await them if the Dems cut off funding. And I would remind people here that the cut-off in 1975 for the Vietnam fiasco occured AFTER all combat troops were out of the country and was a cutoff of additional supplies to the ARVN (who had billions in unused eqt) and a prohibition of additional US air support from offshore and Thailand. And still we hear that we got stabbed in the back. You really think the GOP noise machine – and their willing allies in the media – would be silent?
Has anyone seen George Will’s little blast today at Jim Webb? Imagine being ungracious over the boorishness of a President! Anyone seen David Ignatius’ column praising Chuck Hagel for his Iraq remarks and for being there early? All Praise to Hagel but he did vote for the war. Something that Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and Carl Levin did not. Something that Al Gore and Howard Dean said was a bad idea. And have you seen the latest pearl of wisdom from Tom Friedman? Add another 150,000 troops (from god knows where) and stay another ten years.
Sure let us vote to cut off funds. I’m sure we’ll be praised in the media!
And I’m sure you can draw to that inside straight Flush Marc!
November 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Doc is useless because he representes the mindset, all to common in the blosophere, that it is always somebody else’s fault. No policy he supports will ever fail unless the Democrats have sabatoged it. All we can do is try to mitigate the influence people like Doc have and hope they turn their passions to some other hobby. Maybe hummel figurines.
The George Will column conveniently omits the president’s snippy line. http://tinyurl.com/ylqlr8 I can’t believe I’m paying any attention to this crap. I think this is a cry for help.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
“And have you seen the latest pearl of wisdom from Tom Friedman? Add another 150,000 troops (from god knows where) and stay another ten years.”
Let’s be fair to Tom, rlo. He said we should either do that or get straight out, and he is clearly leaning towards the latter.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
btw this Vietnam analogy business is pretty funny. When us on the left said Iraq was a quagmire like Vietnam the right went ballistic. Now that we can’t win there and are going to have to get out the Vietnam analogy suits them to a T.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Currently I’m reading Woodward’s State of Denial. Two things strike me. (1) It’s Groundhog Day every day in the White House….Bush is saying the same thing today he was saying 3 years ago…2 years ago…1 year ago….and always saying things were getting better…victory was in sight, etc. Things should be freaking wonderful by now, accdg to Bush’s reports.
(2) While Bush consistently has rejected timetables, dates certain, etc., he was insistent, inflexible, on the dates for the various elections held in Iraq. When it came to postponing elections, it was his belief that if there was not a date certain, it wouldn’t happen.
Does the same principle apply to withdrawal of troops? If so, what does that say about the likelihood of withdrawal if the Commander-in-Chief refuses to set a date? That it’s the next guy/gal’s call, I guess.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
You’re right of course Mike but then Friedman has to know that there are no more troops so why not just say “get out”? I’ll tell you why. If he did he would have to admit that he was dead wrong on Iraq and that would never do since being a DC Wise Man means never having to say you’re sorry. So he presents an impossible condition and when it can’t be met he’ll say it would have worked but we didn’t try so it is time to go. See, its not his fault – they didn’t listen!
God I am sick of these useless men who sit in their Georgetown studies and tell us mere mortals what to do. I wish the world were flat so could just sail off the edge and take the rest of the know-it-alls with him!
Jim Webb was too kind!
November 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Richard said,
Sure let us vote to cut off funds. I’m sure we’ll be praised in the media!
The (mass) media were the ones who published all the lies, all the false information about weapons of mass destruction in weapon. They printed war propaganda. Then then Bush presidenct said he was tired of all the negative news, the CBS, NBC reporters & camereapeopole in Baghdad put on body armour, complained about the orders from their editors/producers back in the states, then went off to find the “good news” as Iraq devolved into a civil war.
Yeah, Richard, i think you’re right that the media will descend like vultures on any group of extrmely brave Congresspeople who vote to cut off war funds for Iraq. The first vote we’ll probably lose. Maybe we’ll lose a second and a third vote. The mass media will shriek obscenities all the way home. Too bad for them. The right-wing blogs will put out the latest fantasies about Iraq and nonsense and “white flaggers” and “back stabbers.” Too bad for them. Meanwhile hundreds of Iraqs die each week, thousands of Iraqs die each month, and more and more of our troops will be killed for this awful war.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
The slippery slope just gets more slippery for Bush.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Friedman, Woodward, Blitzer and all these folks are going to proceed with explicit or implicit criticism of the administration’s conduct of the war, carefully declining to say much about the propriety of the initial decision to invade Iraq. This allows them to leave the impression with those unfamiliar with their initial positions that they opposed the war. It also permits them, once the soup has cooled, to go back if they prefer and pretend that if the administration had listened to this guy or that guy (or “me”), “victory” would have been ours.
Woodward’s “guy” appears to be Jay Garner. I can’t help think that Woodward’s modus operandi is to offer his journalistic/historical support to the person who gives him the greatest and most useful access, and to deny it to anyone who does not cooperate with him. Which if very effective when all the main players know Woodward’s game when he comes callin’.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I thought it was Colin Powell.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
“All we can do is try to mitigate the influence people like Doc have and hope they turn their passions to some other hobby. Maybe hummel figurines.”
I’m keeping this one for future strategic use Mavis. Funny! Maybe Doc is a Hummel Figurine.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
I know the Michaels are.
Btw, Webb is a low-class. Doesn’t understand you respect the office of the Presidency. The election is over and he won for god sake. Dumb shit!
November 30th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Add to the low-class list the left in general. Pie throwing, heckling, yelling, disrupting, immature inconsiderate, childish, in-your-face, free-speech-for-me, fuck-you, bratish behavior.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Sorry MC. More Michaels here than I thought. Your excused.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:42 am
Rude? Christ, Bush wrote the book on low class:
Jackassery lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with this president.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:15 am
Yeah real class like giving the Chancellor of Germany a neck rub. Once a frat-boy always a frat boy. Oh and I don’t recall that same insistance on “Respecting the Office” when Clinton was President.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“Doesn’t understand you respect the office of the Presidency.”
I respect the office. I just don’t respect the mindless, clueless, incompetent buffoon who happens to occupy it right now.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Victor David Hansen — why does he sound just slightly less unhinged than Lyndon LaRouche? Pretty blinkered, too. Global War with Islam? Hasn’t he noticed that the world seems to be on the brink of a more more deadly civil war *within* Islam? In Iraq, the Mahdi Army is coming to blows with the Sadrists, and both are fighting Sunni islamists, some of whom are also now going after Al Qaeda in Iraq and vice versa. Shi’ites fighting Sunnis, Shi’ites fighting Shi’ites, Sunnis fighting Sunnis — and *these* are the people whose religious and ideological unity is threatening Western Civilization itself?
Meanwhile, the vast majority of muslims live in relative peace. The most populous muslim country in the world, Indonesia, seems as determined to nail islamist extremists as we are (albeit through means considerably more legal. I guess they’ve overlearned the lessons of Western Civ, eh?)
Actually, Victor David Hansen reminds me very much of Lenin as well. I read somewhere that Lenin’s test scores showed him at genius level in every category except … yes … logic.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Correction to the above–the Mahdi Army (Sadrists) are fighting the Badr Brigade (since supposedly folded into the state security forces). The forces of disintegration within muslim extremism are making things very confusing indeed, recently.