Bush the Radical--The President departs from a decades-old policy toward the Middle East.

danielpipes.org ^ | 11-12-03 | Daniel Pipes

[SJackson]

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe."

This sentence, spoken last week by George W. Bush, is about the most jaw-dropping repudiation of an established bipartisan policy ever made by a US president.

Not only does it break with a policy the US government has pursued since first becoming a major player in the Middle East, but the speech is audacious in ambition, grounded in history, and programmatically specific. It's the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of a great power.

Bush spoke in a candid manner, as heads of state almost never do: "In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."

This is not the first time Bush has dispatched decades' worth of policy toward a Middle East problem and declared a radically new approach.

He also did so concerning Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Iraq: He brushed aside the long-standing policy of deterrence, replacing it in June 2002 with an approach of hitting before getting hit. US 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 provided justification for the war against Saddam Hussein, removing the Iraqi dictator from power before he could attack.

Arab-Israeli conflict: I called Bush's overhaul of the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict in June 2003 perhaps "the most surprising and daring step of his presidency." He changed presumptions by presenting a Palestinian state as the solution, imposing this vision on the parties, tying results to a specific timetable, and replacing leaders of whom he disapproved.

And this time:

Democracy: The president renounced a long-accepted policy of "Middle East exceptionalism" – getting along with dictators – and stated US policy would henceforth fit with its global emphasis of making democracy the goal.

He brought this issue home by tying it to American security: "With the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo." Then, on the premise that "the advance of freedom leads to peace," Bush announced "a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East."

Drawing explicit comparisons with the US success in sponsoring democracy in Europe and Asia, he called on Americans once again for "persistence and energy and idealism" to do the same in the Middle East.

Understanding the rationale behind the old dictator-coddling policy makes clear the radicalism of this new approach. The old way noticed that the populations are usually more anti-American than are the emirs, kings, and presidents. Washington was rightly apprehensive that democracy would bring in more radicalized governments; this is what did happen in Iran in 1979 and nearly happened in Algeria in 1992. It also worried that once the radicals reached power, they would close down the democratic process (what was dubbed "one man, one vote, one time").

Bush's confidence in democracy – that despite the street's history of extremism and conspiracy-mindedness, it can mature and become a force of moderation and stability – is about to be tested. This process did in fact occur in Iran; will it recur elsewhere? The answer will take decades to find out.

However matters develop, this gamble is typical of a president exceptionally willing to take risks to shake up the status quo. And while one speech does not constitute a new foreign policy – which will require programmatic details, financial support, and consistent execution – the shift has to start somewhere. Presidential oratory is the appropriate place to start.

And if the past record of this president in the Middle East is anything by which to judge – toppling regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, promoting a new solution to Arab-Israeli conflict – he will be true to his word here too. Get ready for an interesting ride.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Radix]

It should not take a genius to see what has happened under the auspices of the current Bush administration.

[Happy2BMe]

"Iraq: He brushed aside the long-standing policy of deterrence, replacing it in June 2002 with an approach of hitting before getting hit. US 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 provided justification for the war against Saddam Hussein, removing the Iraqi dictator from power before he could attack."

Dubya spoke the obvious, did the necessary, and discounted the political (correctness) heat.

For these, he will get my (and millions of other) vote in November, 2004.

Perhaps the era of spineless, deceptive, wormy presidents may be coming to a close.

[fishbabe]

spineless,deceptive,wormy presidents....gosh, you weren't thinking about all those dimwads like clinton and carter????remember,daniel pipes was talking about 60 years of presidents,which puts jfk in there too....

[ChadsDad]

""It's the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of a great power. "" --- Do we think kind highly of ourself?

[G.Mason]

""It's the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of a great power. " --- Do we think kind highly of ourself?"

Made me stop a bit, also.

[visitor]

yep, jfk was one of the most non-courageous Presidents we have ever had, well maybe clinton and carter, and his myth has clouded the minds of whole generations :^(...rto

[Guillermo]

And Reagan too...with his non-response to the Beirut attack, and his pin prick attacks on Kaddafi.

[Savage Beast]

This is the choice: confrontation or capitulation. Appeasement is capitulation.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

"I don't care if the United States is not the most popular country in the the World as long it is the most RESPECTED!"

by John Foster Dulles (Secretary of States under Eisenhower)

[SJackson]

""It's the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of a great power. "" --- Do we think kind highly of ourself?

The full paragraph was

Not only does it break with a policy the US government has pursued since first becoming a major player in the Middle East, but the speech is audacious in ambition, grounded in history, and programmatically specific. It's the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of a great power.

That wasn't my take. I see Pipes as complementing GWBs willingness to state the obvious, and perhaps (State won't be on board) change longstanding policies. The columnist or scholar take no risks in advocating a non traditional approach. A head of state does.

[SJackson]

"I don't care if the United States is not the most popular country in the the World as long it is the most RESPECTED!"

You won't hear that from Colin Powell's mouth.

[Dog Anchor]

You may have something there. . .GW is more of the TR mold
I think.

[RinaseaofDs]

I used to be in control of Top Secret information concerning responses to hostile attack, and you would run into assessments that the US would have on other countries that they actually believed, but couldn't say in the paper, like the fact that the USSR was the primary threat to US security, back in the day. That would actually be classified information.

Bush's statement on 60 years of failed 'looking the other way' toward the Middle East would have had some sort of classification associated with it.

We're lucky to have someone with this kind of candor in the actual practice of statecraft.

[Valin]

It was an ASTOUNDING speech. In the space of 45 min. he overthrew 60 years of US policy in the middle east. And it made nary a ripple in the media.
Something I've been telling people. Do you think George Bush
just picked Iraq at random? Look at a map! There we are right smack dab in the heart of the middle east.. and if we are anywhere near successful in establishing a democratic form of government there the middle east will never be the same.
Approve or disapprove but we must admit this guy doesn't dream small dreams.

[G.Mason]

"That wasn't my take. I see Pipes as complementing GWBs willingness to state the obvious, and perhaps (State won't be on board) change longstanding policies. The columnist or scholar take no risks in advocating a non traditional approach. A head of state does."

I didn't make myself clear.

I was simply saying that as I read the piece , I too momentarily paused and re-read it.

I think you are right. It was a compliment.

[Happy2BMe]

". . daniel pipes was talking about 60 years of presidents,which puts jfk in there too...."

If you want a real eye-opener on Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Truman, and Roosevelt - RUN - and get Ann Coulter's book TREASON.

You won't believe the $hit Roosevelt all the way up through Clinton got away with.

Seriesly.

[wardaddy]

I'm not as confident in McDemocracy for everyone as W, but it's a good start.

Our history from Nicaragua to Iran of helping overthrow despots in favor of "something else" is spotty.

An educated public makes for easier transition to republican rule but then they grow fat and ironic and jaded and then what?

I prefer big sticks and financial incentives and a sure will to use said stick more than "nation building" for everybody, but that's just me.

[wayoverontheright]

Not only does it break with a policy the US government has pursued since first becoming a major player in the Middle East, but the speech is audacious in ambition, grounded in history, and programmatically specific.

The shift from appeasement was necessary because making nice fomented a profound lack of respect on the part of our attackers. They leave us no other choice but to pound them into submission, and to do so without trying to obscure its necessary punitive character.

Note to Osama: THIS is the consequence your actions have brought to the entire region.