Posted on 11/22/2007 2:32:30 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
American foreign policy has been nothing like as interventionist as its critics like to think.
Critics of George W. Bush's Middle East policy are hoping for a change in direction once America's 43rd President has left the White House. The foreign offices of Europe all hope for more multilateralism. More realpolitik. Less sabre-rattling.
The critics have a problem, however. In reality, Team Bush has largely been following European approaches to foreign policy for most of the world's troublespot nations.
Take Pakistan. The “realist school” couldn't honestly disapprove of any aspect of Bush's dealings with Islamabad. American taxpayers have financed a military dictator in the hope that Musharraf will suppress the fundamentalists and provide logistical support for Nato operations in Afghanistan. Has this worked? No. Islamic militancy is mushrooming.
Musharraf has often bargained with the political patrons of the madrassas in order to stymie his democratic opponents. If he falls, the Pakistan people may see America as the nation that propped up the regime that introduced martial law and warped the constitution.
It's all too reminiscent of its relationship with the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. When it comes to present-day Iran, Team Bush has been patiently multilateralist. Washington allowed the years to pass as Europe promised to negotiate an end to Tehran's nuclear plans. As it became obvious that the talks were failing, the Americans turned to the United Nations. Russia and China have vetoed any significant action.
Something akin to neoconservatism has only really been pursued in Iraq. Even the keenest supporters of the war readily agree that dreadful mistakes have been made. Nonetheless, the tide is now turning. Violence has halved. The progress of the “surge” is increasingly apparent.
Rushing to judgment is hardwired into our 24/7 news culture, but it probably won't be possible to evaluate the mix'n'match Bush foreign policies for years ahead. The bungled road to a democratic Iraq has been far too bloody but it's now perfectly sensible to believe that Bush's pre-emptive war may have sown the seeds for what could be the least troubled nation of the region in a decade's time. The multilateral approach to Iran may leave us with a nuclear-armed Tehran terrorising Israel and holding the world to ransom over oil supplies.
When it comes to foreign policy the next US president has to remember that America is most effective when the world's only policeman is seen as strong, as in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Problems multiplied when America looked unwilling to commit necessary troops to finish the first battles of the War on Terror. A weak America, tied down by do-nothing multilateralists, is the last thing our dangerous world needs.
WTF is “jaw-jaw”?
Talking.
Jaw jaw? Probably code for more illegal aliens.
From a statement by Winston Churchill I think...Better to Jaw, jaw than war, war.
I’ve got jaw-jaw on my mind.
Happy Thanksgving.
"Tis a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." --Benjamin Franklin
"To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." -- George Washington
"I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater
The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly. --Theodore Roosevelt
Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big. --Theodore Roosevelt
“When it comes to foreign policy the next US president has to remember that America is most effective when the world’s only policeman is seen as strong, as in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Problems multiplied when America looked unwilling to commit necessary troops to finish the first battles of the War on Terror. A weak America, tied down by do-nothing multilateralists, is the last thing our dangerous world needs.”
PERFECT analysis.
Jaw jaw is from a speech given by Winston Churchill—it means diplomacy.
Paki ping
FReepmail if you want on or off
I thought this was the money quote. This IS the democrat foreign policy.
Well he got that right, didn't he.
At one point prior to WW II Winston Churchill made a famous observation that it was better to "jaw-jaw" than to "war-war." This is an allusion to that speech that Brits will recognize.
So true.
I thought it was the state between South Carolina and Florida...Jimmy Carter used to be its Governor.
WTF is “jaw-jaw”?
I’m not sure but I think Monica gave it to Bill.
Dang right...sing it, Ray.
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.