Posted on 01/21/2005 6:41:17 AM PST by baseball_fan
If nothing else, President Bush's second inaugural address yesterday should put to rest the myth that the idealistic roots of his foreign policy aren't his own. The vast "neo-con" conspiracy would appear to start at the top. Not since JFK in 1960 has an American President provided such an ambitious and unabashed case for the promotion of liberty at home and abroad.
"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands," the President said. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." If his critics were looking for a retreat from the challenges in Iraq, or back to the "realism" favored by so many in the foreign-policy establishment, they didn't find it in this speech.
This clearly is a President transformed by September 11. He has drawn the essential lesson of that day, which is that the U.S. cannot consider itself safe from the world's turmoil simply by ignoring it. In George Washington's day, we could avoid "entangling alliances." But not in a world where fanaticism bred in the tyrannies of the Middle East can hijack planes and fly them into office towers in Manhattan. ...more...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
My own 2 cents speculation is that Bush is laying the foundation for some kind of association among democracies that is more effective than the U.N., that will not be intimidated if necessary by China's huge population (25% of the globe) with their coming exertion of economic and military influence, and that this lessens the prospects that one democracy can be played off against another in dealing with North Korea and Iran and even Russia if Putin goes authoritarian.
If a new association of democracies that includes Japan and India and yes, the European countries and Israel and others was to come about, without the absolute veto like the Security Council has I would expect the cooperation to be better. Maybe they make it a combination population and minimum representation standard as to voting strength as we have with a senate and house only added together.
If we go it alone, we are in danger of becoming isolated and having the Chinese play us off individually as they are now with the dropping of the upcoming military trade ban and the EU expected to sell arms to China because they claim Israel is already selling them weapons. If China goes democratic, that takes much of the pressure off and hopefully this will nudge them in this direction.
If Al Qaeda saw that they could not isolate the U.S. among Muslims but would be facing this larger association of democracies of which Afghanistan and hopefully soon Iraq would be part of, this might make the dreams of a global Caliphate appear hopelessly utopian and marginalize the little following they would have left. If would also support the democratic movement inside of Iran because they would not want to be left out.
This would also address the resentment of American power and the associated trend towards being isolated and repair our relationships with allies by placing it in the context of international law that would have more legitimacy than what is coming from the substantially discredited UN.
I like your dream..let's give it a name. The Free World Association. FWA
"Nice dream though."
There will still need to be a U.N. as a place for nations to arbitrate differences, but in terms of getting things done and multiplying our strengths regarding WMD, international crime, terrorism, creating a sustainable and balanced global economy, environment, etc. we need an institution that can be effective and provides an incentive for authoritarian regimes to join because they then will enjoy the accompanying trade, security and freedom that comes with it. Absent this, the world sees U.S. power as increasingly the problem which plays into the hands of our adversaries and the global media. Only this can provide a new basis of effective legitimacy for the use of our near monopoly of military power.
Do you know where I can find the text of President Bush's speech? Thanks
do a web search for "Bush inaugural text" and it should show multiple sites. here is one:
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0120-TextofPres-280607.html
I think if we come across as a democratic "jihad" we run the danger of alienating as many as we "save." A new architecture for the post-cold, new-anarchy world seems in order. Economically alone we need the other democracies so as to not have a run on our debt, and to bring trade into better long term sustainable alignment so that growth can drain the swamps of poverty and desperation that feed extremism.
"Interesting analysis. I hope your speculation has a bit of truth to it...Nice dream though."
Peggy Noonan called Bush's speech a case of "mission inebriation" (i.e. a dream):
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325272/posts#comment?q=1)
I was trying to decypher the possible structural reality underneath Bush's statement: "We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom" that people are somewhat mystified about.
Even the states within our country have found it hard to get along at times, so I would expect it is not to be a cake-walk by any means. I appreciate your reply.
"...a free gift to those who want to accept it, not a demand."
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but it would be a "demand" in the sense that only those who can join are democracies with certain standards as to the rule of law, freedom of the press and religion, etc." If countries want into the club, they have to reach certain qualifications to get the benefits. Even the most rogue states can join the U.N. which is fine for an arbitration body but not for a body that expects to be effective in spreading freedom in the world as we recognize the cold-war policy of containment is not sufficient for the many ills that threaten the modern world. If we are not pro-active, the dangers are these new threats overwhelm the structures now in place with uncontrollable anarchy.
This of course excludes the UN. Today's UN quite simply is nothing more than a forum for tyrants and a piggy bank for international thieves masquerading as diplomats.
Absent this, the world sees U.S. power as increasingly the problem which plays into the hands of our adversaries and the global media. Only this can provide a new basis of effective legitimacy for the use of our near monopoly of military power.
International public opinion based on nothing except rhetoric, rage, and envy will not change. Certain nations (France and China in particular) have grand schemes of based in greater and lesser realms of reality, of replacing the USA at the top of the food chain. Its in America's interest to aggressively develop a new alliance of nations and peoples with similar values to offset these schemes.
Anyone care to post the rest of the piece so I can read it without having to sign onto the WSJ site?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm
This piece from a leftist seems to fit here. I pass this link to all my leftist friends who opposed the war.
All posted articles from this source must be excerpted. Go to bugmenot.com and follow directions, if you don't want to register with the Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com, but the only reason not to register with them is that that may send you a pop-up add.
Let Freedom Ring! A great speech and a great day for the USA.
Thanks.
Yeah, I've been suspecting that too. Especially since the Iraq war - where only the democracies of the world were willing to support the war .. and then with the tsunami, we also had an alliance of democracies which gave the most support - monetarily and militarily.
If we thought the whining would stop .. it has probably just begun.
["http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm This piece from a leftist seems to fit here."]
you might enjoy then Paul Johnson's book, "Intellectuals," which is eye-opening about the reality of much leftist thought versus the myth. anyone after reading it can be counted on to think for themselves regardless of the nature of the subject matter. Reagan thank goodness was able to restore America's belief in herself again, a herculean task at the time.
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.