Has Bush or the World Changed? About “Cowboy Diplomacy.”

There is as much relief from realists as there is disappointment from neo-Wilsonians over a perceived change in U.S. foreign policy — what Time magazine clumsily dubbed “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.” It is true that there is now a regrettable new quietism about promoting democracy in the Middle East . And the United States also insists on multiparty talks with the ghoulish regimes in North Korea and Iran , in a fashion that purportedly seems much different from the go-it-alone caricature of 2001/2.

And the United States also insists on multiparty talks with the ghoulish regimes in North Korea and Iran , in a fashion that purportedly seems much different from the go-it-alone caricature of 2001/2.

Multiparty talks are all about them no longer being able to extract their pound of flesh from us every couple years. If others want North Korea or Iran paid off, they can pony up at the table as well. And it follows the concept of it's them against the world, not the United States. Bilateral discussions with North Korea was yet another mistake of the past that the Bush administration has no interest in following.

In addition, the consuming nations are now providing a windfall of several hundred billion in extra profits to the likes of the House of Saud, the Iranian theocrats, the Gulf Sheikdoms, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin.

Ah, yes, let's talk for a moment about the premier of the worlds first or second largest exporter of crude oil, the very one who chose to nationalize the largest energy producer domiciled in his nation, effectively stealing the assets from its owners.

Is there any reason at all to think such a move might have had an effect on oil prices? It's a rhetorical, sarcastic question, which I shall rephrase to make it more realistic: Is there any reason, in retrospect, to doubt that Mr. Putin had a plan, perhaps even a key role, in forcing energy prices to remail at an all time during the most unstable period in modern history? Consider how the russian satellite nations (thinking of Chavez) began following suit, after their big brother strutted onto the scene.

Which begs the question, to be reviewed again in hindsight: Did that Premier have an interest in promoting such global instability? If so, what, exactly is his interest? Mere money? Stay tuned...

About 9/11 and forgetfulness: I've been looking for a thread on which to report that, today, as I left the gym a mere block from the hole in the ground that used to be the majestic World Trade Centers, I observed a street vendor facing the wall of a building, with a little oriental rug lain at an odd angle to said wall. He was raising his arms and droning on about something in some other language.

I wonder what would happen if I tried to say a Rosary in his hometown after some of my countrymen blew up the largest building there, in the name of God... if nothing else, we're a pretty tolerant lot aren't we?

The idea of "Cowboy Diplomacy" resulted from a commitment to mythopoeia by a leftist media and political establishment as a way to further their machination. President Bush followed diplomacy through the UN to arrive at the imperative of resuming the Iraq war in 2003 against Saddam Hussein. In 1990 UN resolution 678 says member nations are to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area. For Korea in 1950 the resolution directed member nations to furnish necessary assistance to South Korea to restore international peace and security in the area. After Inchon the UN confirmed the phrase “in the area” meant moving into North Korea, so the precedent is obvious.

Next came Resolution 687 in 1991 ordering a unilateral cease fire, provided Hussein acquiesced to his treaty obligations regarding WMD’s, renounced support for international terrorism, and offered UN inspectors all information and unlimited physical access to prove WMD programs were gone. The inspection program envisioned was never demanded as Bush #1, the UN and Clinton caved before Hussein’s hostility towards, evasion of, and finally expulsion in 1998 of the inspectors.

In 2002 Resolution 1441 finally brought accountability by holding Hussein responsible for a further “material breach”. Hussein’s threats, evasions, intimidations and past use were always the keys in those resolutions. The war was resumed as dictated by 687, and completed as contemplated by 678. Bush did not act preemptively against Iraq. Neither did he avoid the obvious demands of resolution 687. Beginning with the fall of 1991 Bush #1, the UN and Clinton all failed in their responsibilities to abide by the dictated response demanded from the UN members according to their resolutions.

In regard to North Korea, a proper approach to diplomacy was not attempted until the Bush #2 administration. Nothing could have been more juvenile and ignorant than to conclude a bilateral agreement with North Korea, which ignored Russia, South Korea, Japan, and China. Hadn’t anyone heard of the principle of “face”, and could not anyone be found who understood the history and millennial perspective of the countries. This nation is still in the reparative stage of dealing diplomatically with this problem.

what Time magazine clumsily dubbed “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.”

Nothing clumsy about it, anything they can do to jam a pointy stick in the President's eye, they do it. What they heck do dims mean by "Cowboy Diplomacy", though, is what, sucking up to the UN? Did we not go to the UN prior to dealing with Saddam? I believe we did. Funny, you don't see that replayed on TV much, though do you? I do believe we had a pretty good coalition of nations together, no? Yeah, we did that all alone. Riiiiiiight.

In other words, "Cowboy Diplomacy" = "Not Sucking Up To The UN".

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.