Posted on 11/04/2009 11:34:21 PM PST by cold start
Former president George W Bush thought that the United States could turn Kabul into Peoria, the archetypal American city in the state of Illinois. President Barack Obama thinks that Kabul is just as good as Peoria. America has shed idealist delusion - that imposing the outward form of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan would implant its content - in favor of an even stranger delusion, which refuses "to elevate one nation or group of people over another", as Obama told the United Nations on September 23.
It was mad to believe that America could remake the world in its own image. Given that more than half the world's languages will go extinct for lack of interest during the present century, it is even madder to turn foreign policy into an affirmative action program for disadvantaged cultures.
But those are the idiot twins of American idealism: either one size fits all, or size doesn't matter. I do not propose to draw a moral equivalence between presidents Bush and Obama: Bush wanted
to elevate American power and Obama wants to diminish it. Bush had better motives, but he was no less destructive of American influence.
Where are the realists?
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
To become the president of the USA these days, you have to have an unrealistic idea of yourself, so it’s no surprise that they are unrealistic in carrying out the duties of the presidency as well. It’s just a shame.
Always look forward to my Spengler fix.
This writer is a jackass
A few years back they were saying these same things about Iraq. It’s interesting what some folks find ridiculous when it comes to war and no backbone.
I don’t think Bush is an idiot.
I think he sold us out, eg,
to Bush, the interests of oil companies were
more important than the well being
of the American people.
with that said,
the article is —> excellent <— .
before you flame me,
think about the results of the
2006 and 2008 elections.
“I don’t think Bush is an idiot.”
True, he is not!
“to Bush, the interests of oil companies were
more important than the well being
of the American people”
I disagree with this one! Bush was all about protecting people. Some kool-aid got spilled on your shirt!
(rj45, please be sure to read the entire
article, I agree with most of the article.)
the war in Afghanistan has gone on way too
long. there are is benefit to us, to stay there.
everything benefits the Muslims, and oil companies.
the US economy is being destroyed
oil is being burned up, helps Muslims
Americans are dying
Americans were dying before we went to Afghanistan and will continue to do so. Man will never have peace in this world because he is inherently greedy and self-serving. Bush was not all about oil. That is just a talking point of the left. Wall Steet and all it’s speculators and commodity investors cater to the democrats in spite of what the rats would have you believe. They were the driving force behind the spike in oil last year. It wasn’t the historical “supply and demand” principle that drove it to $140/barrel. The Muslim extremists and liberals are the biggest threat to our world today.
Excellent article (read the whole thing) describing where America’s true self-interests lie in foreign affairs.
True realism - I’m impressed by Spengler’s matter-of-fact grasp of world affairs. Opened my eyes to a few things.
I largely agree with what you wrote.
except that...
I believe that in the 2006-08 era,
Bush made a deal with the Democrats.
Bush gets, funding for the wars (for the rest of his term)
the Democrats get, to destroy the US economy,
and blame it on the Republican,
through Bush’s dereliction of duty concerning,
the housing bubble, failing banks, failing car companies,
failing other financial companies, etc
I appreciate your comments, btw.
Normally, I think Spengler is great, but while he is going on about “realism” in this article, I think he’s demonstrating precious little of it.
We did not randomly pick Afghanistan as an experiment in exporting civilization. Afghanistan has always been dysfunctional, but it was only when the Taliban managed to get a grip on it (remember the part where they were blowing up its pre-Islamic monuments, destroying girls’ schools, etc. as they locked it down?) that it became dangerous to us. And 9/11 and other plots hatched in those impoverished, remote mountains certainly proved that.
Bush was not just pulling Afghanistan out of a hat for an operation that was a mixture of naive idealism and cynical exploitationism. He was treating it as what it was, a base where evil had installed itself and was striking out at us, and was trying to root out the evil; naturally, if you take one structure away, you have to replace it with something out, so the “nation building” was a very logical attempt to give the Afghanis a functional way of running their little patch of the world. The fact that it hasn’t worked so far is the result of many things, among them lack of committment to the idea of killing as many of the Taliban as possible and a lack of committment to the whole idea of anything that might seem to oppose Islam (which democratic capitalism obviously does, and is precisely the reason for which Obama wants to get rid of it).
The big thing that Spengler seems to ignore is Islam. Non-Islamic countries, even China, are susceptible to pressure and to the carrot and the stick, if only because they actually have a fundamental desire to survive. But with Islamic countries, this is not the case. They love death, as they themselves say, and their whole reason for being is to force the rest of us into their death cult or kill us and themselves as they try. How do you make a deal with that?
Some of the secular states he mentioned, such as Russia, are trying to make a deal with it, in the person of Iran, but that will last only as long as Islam finds it useful. And I say Islam rather than Iran because Islamic countries are much more impelled by a concept of Islam than they are even by an idea of themselves as individual cultures, which is why Iran is able to stir up trouble all over the world. Conquest is all with Islam, and it’s not going to sit quietly by and accept the status quo.
The sunny scenario that we only have to “wait” 20 years for Iran to collapse is also one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Does Spengler think Iran is also just going to sit there and wait to collapse?
The political life of the world is a dynamic thing, and that’s what Reagan realized; he seized the moment. However, he was dealing with Communism, which has nowhere near the power to coerce and destroy that Islam does. Its earlier power and threat came through its Western political structure and its military; but Islam, on the other hand, is a millenia-long anarchic madness that turns dumb cab-drivers into walking bombs and has been beseiging the gates of civilization (both Western and Asian) ever since its inception.
To just shrug it off indicates to me that Spengler is making the mistake he accuses others of, that is, he is not realizing that we are dealing with something entirely different.
And I think there’s one more thing: he believes that Obama’s approach is just one of ineptitude and well-meaning leftist idealism. I believe that Obama self-identifies as a Third World Muslim and wants Islam to win.
actually, he wants leftism to win...and America to lose....you don’t see him lifting a finger to help the Muslim demonstrators in Iraq protesting their government, do you?
Bush helped Muslims to win in Iraq...
This article just goes to show us that idiots are born every ten seconds or so...what a misguided, stupid analysis.
Well, (almost) everybody in Iraq is Muslim, so Bush just tried to give them a political structure that would enable them to have a modern state and be Muslim at the same time (note: I don’t think this is possible). But Obama’s oft-announced intention to hasten withdrawal definitely stimulated the more primitive and unvarnished Islam there and that is why we have had a surge in terrorist bombings of Muslims by Muslims. The people who see the goal of an “Islamic nation” a la Iran have been encouraged.
I agree that he’s a leftist and will opt for leftism anywhere it appears, even if Islam isn’t present. But Islam and the left go very well together and actually a collectivist dictatorship is probably about the only system that could work under Islam. That’s why Chavez and Ahmadinejad can have love-fests in Caracas.
read
“I disagree with this one! Bush was all about protecting people. Some kool-aid got spilled on your shirt!”
If Bush was “all about protecting people”, why the near complete lack of border protection and visa enforcement post-9/11 in the face of tens of thousands of American DEAD at the hands of his “good-hearted people”?
Oh, perhaps the people he was interested in protecting were not Americans. Now your statement makes sense....
Goldman/Spengler is a NeoCon, he subscribes to the NeoCon Doctrine of Foreign Policy.
There has been an ongoing battle between the Realists and the NeoCons and this article is a NeoCon trying to bash the Realists.
The battle began in the Bush Administration and the NeoCons beat the Realists, and invaded Iraq.
That turned into a mess, so Bush convened the Iraq Study Group, which was composed of a bipartisan group of Realists, to revise policies. Bob Gates, a top shelf Realist, went from the Iraq Study Group to Sec of Defense.
In campaign 2008, Obama campaigned on the Realist Doctrine and McCain on the NeoCon Doctrine. In that campaign, most prominent GOP Realists endorsed Obama's foreign policy campaign positions. One very prominent Realist by the name of Colin Powell actually voted for Obama and is still a trusted Obama advisor.
So, when Biden says, who cares what Dick Cheney says or thinks, he is saying who cares what NeoCon Cheney says or think.
OTOH, if you want to know what Obama is going to do in Afghan, see what Realists Kissinger and Scowcroft are thinking and saying.
The topic is realism, or rather what passes for it. I quote:
It is easy to confuse "realism" with a widely shared delusion. In the parlance of American foreign policy, "realism" means accepting a howling lie if it is accepted by a large enough number of people.
That would explain the insistence on the part of the Dems that Zbigniew Brzezinski is their house "realist." It flies in the face both of fact and past history. This is, after all, the fellow who wanted to answer Khomenei by invading Iran. In 1979. I admire the spirit but realistic? Hardly.
Nor was Bush's invasion of Iraq principally motivated by any sense of idealism except as a post-decision justification. He faced (1) a festering, low-level shooting war with a fellow who had already invaded one neighbor and slaughtered at least 15,000 and perhaps as many as 50,000 Kurds after the shooting nominally stopped; (2) a resurgence of militant Islamism that had killed 3000 Americans in a surprise attack some nine months into his administration, with which Saddam was allied and had a long history of past support, and (3) a generally deteriorating situation throughout the Middle East. Invading Iraq served to alter the balance and direction of events in a manner none of the Islamist commanders could have anticipated. It may have had a number of gooey pro-democracy justifications but in application it was just as cold and just as effective as any military commander could wish for. One seizes the initiative, and that's exactly what Iraq served to do. Geostrategically it was as realistic a ploy as anything Metternich or Bismark ever came up with.
It was also entirely impossible to sell to the American public on that basis. And it nearly failed, but in the event, fail it did not and Islamism found itself necessary to find another battlefield. And so it has, as the progression of casualty figures through the last eight years demonstrates conclusively.
On the broader topic of realism in foreign policy generally, while I admire the ruthless efficiency of some of the realists I cited - Richelieu might be another, Elizabeth I and Peter the Great; history abounds with them - it won't happen in the United States, at least not in any overt manner. One of the most realistic and effective foreign policies of all time was that of Genghis Khan. There are other factors involved in foreign policy than realism. It has to be sustainable, and in a representative government, that means saleable. Idealism is saleable. That is realism.
Parsing the politics of the near and middle East while ignoring Islam is like analyzing the Industrial Revolution without ever mentioning the steam engine.
How in the world do you stumble into the delusion that Bush sold out the American people for “the interests of oil companies”? Are you channeling Michael Moore?
Try to direct your lies to the topic.
Goldman was a little less of a neocon when he started, and one of the things I liked about him was his awareness of the value of Western (Judeo-Christian) culture and its difference from ME (Islamic) culture.
Suddenly, this seems to have disappeared. Wha’ happen?
Also, even from a pragmatic point of view, these people are wrong, wrong, wrong, and falling into the same error they accuse Bush of having fallen into. They think Islam is rational and will respond to a rational approach. But it isn’t and it won’t.
Well, real “realism” would mean exterminating the enemy and moving ahead. What is called “realism” now simply means groveling or ignoring the enemy in hopes that it will decide you’re dead anyway and leave you on the battlefield. And maybe you can limp away and wait for somebody stronger to defeat your enemy.
Still, I think the problem in our case is that Obama is actually on their side.
Many thanks (and for getting the gender right)!
But I’m really puzzled that Spengler should be taking this approach. He was one of my favorite writers and seemed really to understand the essential conflict between the Judeo-Christian world and the Islamic world - but all of a sudden, he seems to have forgotten it and he believes that it’s all a matter of strategic alliances and he leaves Islam out of the picture altogether. What gives?
“:On Bush/Iraq threads you’re really only allowed to misstate and fabricate conspiracy crap about Bush’s Iraq policies.”
So, what you are saying is that Bush secured the border, did not encourage illegal immigration, and enforced nearly unenforced visa laws (said non-enforcement was exploited by the 9/11 terrorists). Really, now. I know that Bushbots are just as immune to reality as their Obamabot cousins, but seriously.... Bush’s failure to secure the border is not “Democrat propaganda”. They were on his flippin’ SIDE!
When he finally did send the Guard, they were ordered to WITHDRAW from our border if met with armed opposition crossing it! All in time of WAR! Ah, but Dear Leader wanted it, so it must be good, right? When weakness is excused as “being classy” and liberal agendas become a “grand strategy” or “rope-a-dope”.... Bush was a lib. No one honest can deny that.
As for Iraq, “democracy” doesn’t equal “freedom”. This belief is prevalent at State and other places, but it’s false. Voting in a constitution for Iraq that puts Islam as the highest law is not “freedom” nor does it protect us. Ignoring Saudi Arabia’s central role as the funder of the enemy is no help either. Any country where Islam is in the public square is a tyranny. Just ask the Christian communities in Iraq.
in disregard of your sarcasm Bush did what any leader should do in protecting the homeland in spite of all the criticism he took from the left and professing centrists. btw, this is much bigger than you and your agenda; it’s about a balance of politics and, although Bush was not a fiscal conservative he was determined to protect the homeland at all costs. Instead of directing your ire at W, you should be focused on taking down the REAL evil about to engulf us.
Yeah, true to some extent. But still, GW Bush had a realistic view — his Dad had been President, his brother and he himself Governors of major states.
And Reagan had a realist’s view too — developed by a series of varied life experiences — life guard, sports announcer working the field of imagination, movie actor is the world of the pretend, fame and glamor, yet also hard bottom lines. Then union president, political speaker, and major state Governor. It allowed him to see false for false and true for true, and to know his communist enemies from the inside — unlike Arnold — who seems to lived too much in the false lands of bodybuilding and modern era movie fame.
Truman and Eisenhower — also realists by means of varied experience — while Ike was always military, his experiences in that Army were extraordinarily wide.
But the rubric holds for men like Hoover, GHW Bush, Nixon, Kennedy, Carter, even FDR, yet FDR finally grew up in the office as Europe fell to the Nazis.
Getting back before Hoover the rubric works less well, backroom politics and not mass marketing before Hoover.
“in disregard of your sarcasm Bush did what any leader should do in protecting the homeland in spite of all the criticism he took from the left and professing centrists.”
You mean leave us wide open, invite more Muslims here, proclaim admiration for the ideology of the enemy, and prosecute our own troops?
As bad as FDR was (”Uncle Joe” and all that), even he wasn’t that bad.
“btw, this is much bigger than you and your agenda; it’s about a balance of politics and, although Bush was not a fiscal conservative he was determined to protect the homeland at all costs.”
He was not. He was perfectly able to enforce EXISTING LAW. There were just some things more important to him than American citizens. Amnesty was his big push. THAT was his agenda. 9/11 just delayed him a bit. At the very least, don’t you at LEAST think he should’ve overhauled the lax visa enforcement? That is, of course, how the 9/11 terrorists were able to infiltrate us. Nothing was done on that, either.
“Instead of directing your ire at W, you should be focused on taking down the REAL evil about to engulf us.”
I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I sometimes wonder if the rabid defenders of our last Republican President (get his and McCain’s amnesty through and that’s certain) were awake during his administration.
“But still, GW Bush had a realistic view — his Dad had been President, his brother and he himself Governors of major states.”
I can’t agree that having had a father as president or having been a governor makes you have a less grandiose sense of yourself.
my understanding is,
in the year 2005 or so,
Bush was selling gasoline to our enemies in
Iraq for a dollar a gallon,
when I was paying three.
and paying Haliburton a dollar for their effort.
what am I suppose to think?
In this case it did.
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.