Posted on 10/24/2004 10:30:41 PM PDT by Utah Girl
The Middle East has so defined the presidency of George W. Bush that historians will, I expect, judge him primarily according to his actions there. And so, too, will American voters in just more than a week, when they go to the polls.
It has not been fully appreciated that, when it comes to the Middle East, Bush has systematically responded to the region's problems by dispatching decades' worth of accepted practices and replacing them with stunningly different approaches. In contrast, John Kerry unimaginatively holds to failed policies of the past.
Bush has upturned U.S. policy in four main areas.
War rather than law enforcement. From the beginning of Islamist violence against Americans in 1979 (including the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, for 444 days), Washington responded by seeing this as a criminal problem and responded by deploying detectives, lawyers, judges and wardens. On Sept. 11, 2001, itself, Bush declared that we are engaged in a "war on terror." Note the word war. This meant deploying the military and the intelligence services, in addition to law enforcement. In contrast, Kerry has repeatedly said he would return to the law-enforcement model.
Democracy rather than stability. "Sixty years of Western nations' excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe." This declaration, made by Bush in November 2003, rejected a bipartisan policy focused on stability that had been in place since World War II. Bush has posed a challenge to established ways such as one expects to hear from a university seminar, not from a political leader. In contrast, Kerry prefers the dull, old, discredited model of stability.
Preemption rather than deterrence. In June 2002, Bush brushed aside the long-standing policy of deterrence, replacing it with the more active approach of eliminating enemies before they can strike. U.S. security, he said, "will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." This new approach justified the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power before he could attack the United States. In contrast, Kerry waffles on this issue, usually coming out in favor of the old deterrence model.
Leadership rather than reaction in setting the goals for an Arab-Israeli settlement. In June 2003, I dubbed Bush's revamping of U.S. policy to the Arab-Israeli conflict perhaps "the most surprising and daring step of his presidency." Rather than leave it to the parties to decide on their pace, Bush came up with a timetable. Rather than accepting existing leaders, he sidelined Yasir Arafat. Rather than leaving it to the parties to define the final status, he made a Palestinian state the solution. Rather than keep himself out of negotiations until the very end, Bush inserted himself from the start. In contrast, Kerry would go back to the Oslo process and try again the tired and failed effort to win results by having the Israelis negotiate with Arafat.
I have some reservations about the Bush approach, and especially what strikes me as the President's highly personal reading of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I admire how he has responded to what clearly are the country's worst external problems with energy and creativity. His exceptional willingness to take risks and shake up the malign status quo in the Middle East stands a good chance of working.
It is easy to overlook Bush's radicalism in the Middle East, for in spirit he is a conservative, someone inclined to preserve what is best of the past. A conservative, however, understands that to protect what he cherishes at times requires creative activism and tactical agility.
In contrast, although John Kerry is the liberal, someone ready to discard the old and experiment with the new, when it comes to the Middle East, he has, through his Senate career and in the presidential campaign, shown a preference to stick with the tried and true, even if these are not working.
Ironically, when it comes to the Middle East, it's Bush the radical versus Kerry the reactionary.
Yes.
Great article, UG.
Bush is all about results. Kerry and the Dems are all about talk, more talk, appeasement, neutering Israel, yet more talk, and continuing the failed policies of the last 50 years.
GW will be one of the greatest Presidents. We probably won't be alive to see it thought.
I don't know. Ronald Reagan is now being touted as one of the greatest US Presidents...
I have become convinced after careful thought, that this is why Bush is so hated.
Bush has been quite liberal in so many ways - prescription drugs etc - you have to wonder just why the left is so rabid in its absolute hatred and disdain of this good man?
But Bush is a true visionary, a risk taker. He frightens the left because he is a world changer, and inherently liberals are for the status quo - change and forward thinking frighten them. Their answers to problems are always to try and shore up failed institutions, never to really reform and revise them. Throw more money at the problem - but don't admit failure and try a radically new idea. But Bush thinks like a businessman, not a politician.
How terrifying for democrats! Bush is not afraid to take risks and shake the towers of complaceny. What will he do next? They are terrified. They see doom in everything he does.
The results don't matter, good or bad. The thing is, he has the nerve to DO IT. It doesn't matter than he substitutes democracy for tyranny, or the things he takes on are failed ideas. They don't want stuff touched. They are ideological wimps. They are motivated by fear. That's why they like socialism - it takes care of them.
Actually, I think that's where Bush differs from the liberals. With him, results do matter. With liberals, process matters...and hang the results.
As somebody upthread noted, Bush's approach is that of the businessman. Or, as you noted, he has vision -- the kind that changes the world.
And it is because he is after results. He is confronted with a problem, his instinct is to solve the damn thing.
Liberals, on the other hand, see problems as campaign issues -- and nothing more.
I believe we are indeed favored with a President who will change the world and improve the country. Just when we needed one, too. George W. Bush will be one for the history books -- not only because of his vision, but because of what he will accomplish.
Thanks for the post, Utah Girl. This is one of the more thought-provoking pieces on the site in the past few weeks.
To be fair, 9-11 changed the dynamic by making it personal to the USA. There was never a wide consensus for action in the USA until it became very personal.
To an extent, there is still no wide consensus, but it's certainly more of a consensus than ever before.
If not for 911 (or another event like it), there wouldn't be a consensus and the region wouldn't have changed much.
"The results don't matter, good or bad."
I hope I was clear when I wrote this. I agree 100% with you. With liberals, results don't matter. The process matters. That "they are working through the system". They don't have the innards to correct a malfunctioning program because "somebody might get hurt". (Sort of a picture of their view of everything, isn't it?)
Bush, businesslike, sees when something isn't working, he not only changes it, he is radical in his changes. Rip it out. Fix it. Don't throw good money after bad.
While I was listening to talk radio last week, I heard a host (Boortz?) say, "Govermment is the only business, where, if your program doesn't work, it is figured you should get MORE money. In the real businessworld, if a program doesn't work, it's tossed."
Thanks for the ping, SJ
BTT
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~
Good article, I'm going to pass it along to my Dad (Republican as is my Mom).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.