| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Time: The end of cowboy diplomacy |
| 2006-07-10 |
All the good feeling at the White House at President Bush's early birthday party on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that the president finds himself in a world of hurt. A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory. And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland. Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action. Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times. The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone. Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years. That was before 9/11 dumbass. Having 3,000 innocent civilians blown away in a terrorist act is bound to change foreign policy... After September 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003. But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. And helping Japan build a missle defense which would help defuse both North Korea and the real master here China. The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad. No mention that Iraq and Afghanistan are now free. Saddam is under arrest and on his way to a well deserved execution. AL-Q is on the ropes and bleeding heavily. The administration is paying the bill every day as it tries to cope with other crises. Pursuing the forward-leaning foreign policy envisioned in the Bush Doctrine is nearly impossible at a time when the U.S. is trying to figure out how to extricate itself from Iraq. We are? Taking note and taking advantage Around the world, both the U.S.'s friends and its adversaries are taking note -- and in many cases, taking advantage -- of the strains on the superpower. The past three years have seen a steady erosion in Washington's ability to bend the world to its will. As compared to the Clinton years when we bent-over to the will of Kimmie, Saddam, Koffe, etc.... The strategic makeover is most evident in the ascendance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has tried to repair the administration's relations with allies and has persuaded Bush to join multilateral negotiations aimed at defusing the standoffs with North Korea and Iran. The six party talks (read: multilateral) were always a cornerstone of our handling of Kimmie. By training and temperament, Rice is a foreign-policy realist, less inclined to the moralizing approach of the neoconservatives who dominated Bush's cabinet in the first term. Which explains how just about everyone on Rantburg thinks she's great (even without the boots and black trenchcoat) Her push for pragmatism has rubbed off on hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney, the primary intellectual force behind Bush's post-9/11 policies. "There's a move, even by Cheney, toward the Kissingerian approach of focusing entirely on vital interests," says a presidential adviser. "It's a more focused foreign policy that is driven by realism and less by ideology." To much of the world, that's a relief. The whole 'Cowboy Deplomacy' thing has always been a media creation. Bush has always, as far as I can see, tried to use deplomacy before resorting to military action -- look at all the sessions at the UN before invading Iraq. The real problem is that Bush didn't get U.N. approval before defending our vital interests, or going after terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent victims. Kerry would have required U.N. approval before commiting anything beyond a strongly worded letter. |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #17 End of "Cowboy Diplomacy" or beginning of "Elvis Diplomacy?" |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-07-10 15:44 |
| #16 Does anyone other then Doctor and Dentist offices subscribe to Time / Newsweak / etc...? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-07-10 15:43 |
| #15 Who reads Time anymore? News magazines are artifacts of a bygone age. Time, Newsweek, and their ilk have become leftist broadsheets where propagandists like Joe Klein can print their screeds. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-07-10 15:21 |
| #14 That's right up there with "Has he stopped beating his wife, yet?" Or the one they used in 2000: "Mr. Bush, when did you give up snorting Cocaine?" |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-07-10 14:52 |
| #13 Wasn't it Time magazine that first coined the term "cowboy diplomacy" in referring to the Bush administration? That makes it easier. Just declare that your hated political opponent is something, then after a time, declare that he is no longer that something, having learned the error of his ways. That's right up there with "Has he stopped beating his wife, yet?" |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-10 14:48 |
| #12 Off Topic. But because of the reparations post above, I think I may need representation to get my share of the dough, lucre, bread, geld. I need someone who is familiar with the folkways of the south and in particular maybe the weirdness of Napoleonic law.... hummmmmmm... I would cut the lawyer enough for a quality toup. :> |
| Posted by: 6 2006-07-10 14:35 |
| #11 Scrappleface is up on this one. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-07-10 14:09 |
| #10 There hasn't been an intelligent analysis of international relations in the MSM since 9/11. These fags think their prattle has some bite to it, but it's meer fantasy. The cold war goes on, with China replacing USSR as the main opponent, and the absurd attempt to destroy civilization by mother Islam sheds blood far and wide. However, the world is still led by the USA. This will remain unless and until the socialists lefties are able to trip up our better intentions. The Islamist will bring about their bloody end before the Euroabia experiment bears fruit, and the advanced Oriental races will overtake the Norky hermit and embarrass China. Tomorrow's world will be two groups. One industrialized and engaged, and the other backward and isolated. Neither will be because of |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-07-10 13:59 |
| #9 Well, since Time put "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy" on its cover, that's means we're in for a new period of Cowboy diplomacy. Which is a good thing.... |
| Posted by: danking_70 2006-07-10 12:53 |
| #8 JC is WC without the "BJ." |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-07-10 12:30 |
| #7 Yup, it was obvious in '94. It was also obvious that we should have stayed out of the Balkans, but WC had to be a hero to his Euro buddies. And he had to send thos guys into Mogadishu without armor and then abandon the position instead of kicking ass. All in all, in the Jimmah Cahtah class of president. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-10 12:08 |
| #6 Think how much more efficient it could have been NS, if the Clinton Administration hadn't punted in the first place. Think of how much cheaper all this would have been if Sunday School Carter had back the Shah in the 70s. The Shah was no kinder gentler type guy, but neither was Stalin with whom Franklin Roosevelt hung out. The whole prattle is about people wanting to avoid getting blood on their hands even though they know that basically nothing else really works. Their problem is that they drag the rest of us down with them. |
| Posted by: Theresh Thrinenter5301 2006-07-10 12:00 |
| #5 The real problem is that Bush Administration, and the country, don't have the stomach to finish the Axis of Evil, now, when it can be done inexpensively. Instead, we'll pay later. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-10 11:27 |
| #4 Unfortunately, this article, seems to define it as 'going in with both guns blazing'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-07-10 11:27 |
| #3 Can you imagine how much of a problem the islamists would be now if Gore won in 2000 and/or Kerry in 2004? |
| Posted by: Thomogum Ebbaiter3199 2006-07-10 11:25 |
| #2 They mean, "consolidation phase" instead of "invasion phase". |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-07-10 11:18 |
| #1 Definition: "Cowboy Diplomacy" Say what you mean, and mean what you say. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-07-10 11:14 |