I'm just the guy that can't stand cant. ___________

 
ASK NOT WHAT BUSH CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY: Many Americans of a certain age have long felt that a dream of idealistic government died 40 years ago with the assassination of President Kennedy.

Thanks to President Bush, however, there is a new dream of idealism in government. But in the hands of this president with the reverse Midas touch, the new dream is a nightmare.

President Kennedy inspired many Americans with his call for idealism in government. Kennedy’s admonition “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” was not empty rhetoric.

A strain of tough-minded idealism was present in many of the policies and initiatives of the Kennedy administration. Sometimes the idealism was front and center, resulting in initiatives such as the Peace Corps and the negotiation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Other times, the idealism was tempered, and even slowed, by political considerations or other pragmatic concerns. This was the case with civil rights, which the Kennedy administration approached gingerly at first but eventually came around to promoting. Even if the idealism did not always win out, its influence was pervasive.

The idealism of the Kennedy administration was successful because it was combined with a tough-minded realism that guarded against wishful thinking.

Kennedy’s idealism contained a strong anti-communist bent without distorting a realistic view of the world. It was an idealism that was strong enough to pull back when caution was in the nation’s best interests. Thus, when confronted with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy decided not to support militarily the ill-advised invasion of Cuba by CIA-backed anti-Castro Cubans. This caution was also seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Kennedy rejected advice to invade Cuba and instead remained firm in seeking and obtaining a peaceful resolution to what could have been a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union.

Kennedy’s idealism was the idealism of a pragmatic politician who wanted to improve the world while mindful of the limitations that the world imposed on him.

That was the idealism in the government of yesteryear. An idealism that was tempered with realism and an appreciation for long-term consequences.

Today our government has strains of an idealism that is filtered not through realism, but through a rigid right-wing ideology. An idealism that can be recklessly destructive as it seeks to remake the world while ignoring the likely consequences of its actions.

Bush’s idealism is the grandiose idealism of the schizophrenic. Bush seeks to remake the word without regard for the limitations of the world – or even reality.

Bush decided to push America into invading Iraq largely because he was in thrall to the twisted idealism of naive neoconservative ideologues who believed that an American invasion would be followed by Iraq transforming itself into a peaceful democracy practically overnight.

This neoconservative dream of engineering a democratic transformation of the Middle East was closer to a schizophrenic delusion than a serious plan. It was a dream that jumbled together imperialism, nationalism, unilateralism, arrogance and, yes, even idealism. But it was an idealism that was constrained and twisted by a rigid neoconservative ideology that accepts the truth of only those theories that support its pre-conceived worldview. It was an incredibly stunted and myopic idealism that was incapable of integrating other values – such as respect for international order – or even an appreciation for reality.

Now that Bush has plunged America and Iraq into his neoconservative dream, it has turned out to be a nightmare. The weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly the main justification for war are nowhere to be found. The fighting and dying continue long past the point when Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. As I discussed in my previous post, BUSH'S WISHFUL THINKING DEBATES CLARK’S STRATEGIC VISION, while Bush has espoused noble intentions for the Middle East, he has failed to offer any realistic plan for success in the pacification of Iraq. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan Al Qaeda and the Taliban are taking advantage of the Bush administration’s neglect of that country and are regrouping.

Since the idealism of the Bush administration is subservient to its ideology, the administration has found it difficult to adjust to reality.

The idealism of the Bush administration is akin to the idealism of the old-time American Communists who denied the reality of Stalin’s brutality less it threaten their dream of a Marxist utopia. Similarly, the Bush idealists had this dream that invading Iraq would be the first step in remaking the entire Middle East into a democratic utopia. They did not let realistic considerations such as the unpredictability of war and the continuing terrorist threat in the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan distract them from trying to live out their dream.

Unlike Bush, Kennedy showed that it is possible for a politician to be both an idealist and a realist. Kennedy was more a pragmatist that an idealist. Ironically, Kennedy’s pragmatism enabled his idealism to be strong and effective.

In contrast to Kennedy, Bush has demonstrated how idealism without realism can result in naivety, one of the most dangerous traits for a statesman to have. Such naivety led Bush to blunder into his Iraqi adventure – for the grand purpose of remaking the Middle East – instead of finishing the more urgent (yet less imperial) job of chasing down Osama bin Laden and the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Bush’s unrealistic idealism has been harmful to America’s national security. Unfortunately, when Bush asked what he could do for his country, he lacked the judgment to answer that question with realism instead of ideology.
posted by Gary at 10:23 AM

 
BUSH’S WISHFUL THINKING DEBATES CLARK’S STRATEGIC VISION: We may have had a preview of the 2004 presidential candidates’ debate on foreign policy yesterday with President Bush’s and retired General Wesley Clark’s dueling speeches on the Middle East and Iraq.

The two speeches showed each candidate at his best. Bush, the master of wishful thinking, expressed noble intentions of desiring the spread of democracy, albeit without offering a plan likely to achieve such goals. Clark, a military strategist, offered a plan for success in Iraq that would advance the goals Bush claims to have.

As today’s Washington Post reports, Bush posed a vision of democratic change in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East without actually offering any clue how it is to be achieved:

In a speech that redefined the U.S. agenda in the Middle East, President Bush waxed eloquent yesterday about his dream of democracy coexisting with Islam and transforming an important geostrategic region that has defiantly held out against the global tide of political change.

But Bush failed to acknowledge the tough realities that are likely to limit significant political progress in the near future: the United States' all-consuming commitment to fighting a global war on terrorism and confronting Islamic militancy. Washington still relies heavily on alliances with autocratic governments to achieve these top priorities.

....

In a broad assessment of the region, the president inflated the progress toward democracy made by allies such as Saudi Arabia that are harshly criticized for their abuses in the annual U.S. human rights report, while he criticized countries such as Iran that have made some inroads but do not have good relations with Washington.

“His portrayal of what's going on in Arab countries is totally unrealistic,” said Marina Ottaway, co-director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The reality that he is overlooking is that in all these countries that are supposedly making progress, hostility to the United States is at an all-time high,” she said. “So the idea that these are countries where progress on democracy is going to make them better allies is certainly not supported by what is going on.”

Bush’s call for democratic change in the Middle East wishes for the right things. Unfortunately, wishing doesn’t make it so. Bush now dreams of democratic change in the Middle East just as he and the naive neoconservative dreamers who captured his fancy imagined that an American invasion of Iraq would be greeted by flower-tossing Iraqi Jeffersons and Madisons who would usher in a democratic society practically overnight. Without a strategic vision of how to realize the goal of democratization, however, that aspiration is likely to remain a dream.

In contrast to Bush’s wishful thinking about democracy spreading through the Middle East, Clark offered a detailed plan of how to achieve success in pacifying Iraq. As today’s New York Times reports:

Gen. Wesley K. Clark said Thursday that military operations in Iraq should be turned over to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization force under United States command and that he would replace the civilian administration there with an international effort not under American leadership.

General Clark, who is retired from the Army and who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, made the proposals to build international involvement and stabilize Iraq in an address here at South Carolina State University.

It was the fourth in a series of speeches laying out his platform for the presidency, based on what he calls a "new American patriotism." He also said he would conduct a conference with leaders from Europe, Japan, the Arab world and other countries to enlist their support for a more international approach to Iraq.

As part of that effort, General Clark said, he would recall the former Iraqi army and ask the cooperating nations to commit 50,000 troops to help the Iraqis in policing, police training, oversight and border control.

The creation of a new "reconstruction and democracy council" in Baghdad would be modeled, he said, on the international coalition that oversaw security and military operations in the Balkans in the 1990's.

....

Seeking to repair ties with European allies that he said have been damaged by the Bush administration, General Clark said he would propose “a new Atlantic Charter to reinvigorate our security partnership with Europe.”

He said such an organization would supplement NATO rather than replace it and would “define the threats we face in common, create the basis for concerted action from our allies to meet them, and offer the promise to act together as a first choice, not a last.”

General Clark also said that the makeup of American military forces in Iraq should be overhauled, with more special forces and light units and fewer conventional infantry units, which require significant amounts of lightly armed logistical support units that also make tempting targets for attacks.

The military forces in Iraq also need more specialists in language and intelligence, he said. He proposed asking international inspectors to take over the search for unconventional weapons, which would free American linguists and intelligence specialists to work on efforts “to find the people who are killing our soldiers.”

To help to close Iraq's borders to infiltration by terrorists, General Clark said, “We should engage with the Syrians, the Iranians and the Saudis, and we need carrots as well as sticks.”

“Unfortunately, this administration has made the region wary of working with us,” he said. “I'll make sure as president that we don't ever get into a mess like this again.”

Unlike Bush’s approach, Clark’s levelheaded plan for Iraq does not rely on hope, it offers hope. Clark’s experience in leading NATO forces to victory in Kosovo informs his judgment that the best way to serve America’s interests is to build truly international coalitions to support our goals.

Bush has foolishly alienated much of the world, leaving America to bear a far greater share of the burden in Iraq than would have been necessary under a more cooperative approach. Bush lacks the strategic vision to realize that when America acts with the support of NATO or the UN, it can be far stronger than when it acts alone. Clark has that strategic vision.

“Hope is not a plan,” is a favorite saying of military strategists. With his penchant for treating his hopes as plans, Bush has shown he is no strategist. With his articulation of a plan to achieve success in Iraq, Clark has shown that he is no Bush.

Although Clark still has to overcome a few minor obstacles (such as winning the Democratic nomination) before facing Bush, he won his first debate against Bush hands down. While Bush offered only a vision of wishful thinking that relied on hope, Clark offered a strategic vision that actually offered hope of success in Iraq.

Thursday’s debate between Bush and Clark indicates that if Clark does win the Democratic nomination for president, America will have a clear-cut choice between two different styles of governing – Bush’s wishful thinking versus Clark’s strategic vision.
posted by Gary at 6:07 PM