New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | February 22, 2005

Will all who live under tyranny and hopelessness hold President Bush to his promises? Justin Logan takes a look.

Comments

|2.22.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Once again proving my theory: Germans love David Hasselhoff!

|2.22.05 @ 10:47AM|#

This article reminds me of those Onion spoofs by "Jackie Harvey," the perpetually late-to-the-trend gossip columnist.

But does the president really mean it?

No! You're in blog-time now, Justin, catch up!

|2.22.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Wait, so we know that Bush didn't really mean all that stuff about democracy because Justin Logan is pretty sure we wouldn't have done anything in Ukraine if things got ugly? Uh, great.

|2.22.05 @ 10:57AM|#

Will all who live under tyranny and hopelessness hold President Bush to his promises?

Hmmm...George Pataki as Saddam Hussein. Eliot Spitzer as Baghdad Bob. This has promise.

|2.22.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Much the same as Hungary in 1956, Ukraine is a tough target for US military action. None of the surrounding countries would have been likely to allow us to invade from their territory, unless you suggest an amphibious assault from Turkey.

|2.22.05 @ 11:04AM|#

Oops, I forgot Poland. Never mind.

|2.22.05 @ 11:15AM|#

To all the embattles supporters of freedom in other countries, I have this to say:

I'll hold the football, and you come running up and kick it!

Heh heh heh . . . I'm such a sadist!

|2.22.05 @ 12:09PM|#

I must have missed the part where W promised to bomb or invade anyone, anywhere, in support of democracy.

Maybe he's taking a leaf from the French playbook, and exerting "soft power" hither and yon. Why is it that the froggies get all kinds of credit when they issue communiques and press releases, but Bush doesn't get any?

|2.22.05 @ 12:11PM|#

I feel quite confident that Bush genuinely intends to provide material support to democratic opposition movements. On Mars. In combination with an initiative to wipe out AIDS. And reform immigration laws. And pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"so we know that Bush didn't really mean all that stuff about democracy because Justin Logan is pretty sure we wouldn't have done anything in Ukraine if things got ugly?"

Er, no. We know Bush didn't really mean it because he holds out his Iraq and Afghanistan policy as the model of his global liberation strategy, and both of those events compelled him actively support people like Karimov, Putin, and the "Chicoms" as they used the GWOT as an excuse to squash their internal opposition movements.

|2.22.05 @ 12:27PM|#

That's great, joe, but none of that is in the article.

|2.22.05 @ 12:46PM|#

I know of no liberals a generation ago who thought it was unimportant that the world and the US denounce and sanction the former regime in South Africa - not a one was heard to say
"Fer Chris'sakes, if were not gonna INVADE the guys, why don't we just shad'dup and trade with'em!"

Your thoughts, joe?

|2.22.05 @ 1:05PM|#

I see where John McCain (Ahole-AZ) is calling for permanent U.S. bases in Afghanistan. Does McCain intend to out-Bush Bush?

Warren|2.22.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Our cozy relationships with the house of Saud, Beijing, and assorted other disgusting regimes around the globe should be enough to convince anybody that Bush is full of shit when spews rhetoric about the United States commitment to opposing tyranny.

Furthermore, I maintain that the fact the word "Burma" (to the best of my knowledge) has never escaped his lips, is incontrovertible proof that his foreign policy is devoted to no greater aim than driving up the price of energy so his fishing buddies in the Texas Oil business can buy bigger yachts.

fyodor|2.22.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Andrew,

I wonder what's the point of your question to joe. Of course liberals have advocated trade sanctions against nations with poor human rights records, including a famous one named Jimmy Carter. Is that what Bush means when he alludes to "force of arms"? Is it what you're advocating?

|2.22.05 @ 1:26PM|#

I think Bush should send troops to Sikeston, Missouri. Local warlords, um, I mean, the police, are going after 6 year-old girls who give their friends a bag of dirt.

|2.22.05 @ 1:29PM|#

Thoreau: We're all in this Global War on Dirt together. No one is free until everyone is free.

|2.22.05 @ 1:37PM|#

Folks are baiting joe, people are accusing Bush of acting only to enrich his oil-buddies, vague sarcasm is randomly thrown at the war on drugs ... The H&R message board is indeed back up, and all components are working as expected. Thank God!

PintofStout|2.22.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Cleanliness is next to godlyness...so how about a Constitutional Amendment to ban dirty people?!

PintofStout|2.22.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Do it for the War on Dirt.

rox_publius|2.22.05 @ 1:46PM|#

I'd tell Justin not to be so quick about accepting Chivers NYTimes version of the SBU involvement in Ukraine's Orange Revolution.

Seems Chivers has a penchant for painting the Soviet KGB and it's descendents warm and fuzzy types who have been merely misunderstood all this time.

http://vkhokhl.blogspot.com/2005/01/radio-libertys-ukrainian-service.html

|2.22.05 @ 2:30PM|#

Bush's "allusion" to force of arms was to expressly place limitations on it - a position reiterated since by Rice.

On the other hand, Bush burned just about everyone among the odious on this European trip - Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Iran and Syria, Russia and China...so, happy now?

Moral suasion can be important. The last white leader of South Africa asked white voters to vote for change, and they did by a crushing margin. Who thinks this has NOTHING to do with decades of disapproval? Or that outcomes wouldn't have been far worse if the white electorate had not conceded majority rule, and by a wide margin?

Would that electorate have behaved the same way if the message of the outside world been one of indifference, cynicism and a bogus "sympathy for different traditions"?

|2.22.05 @ 2:30PM|#

Josh, Im curious since you believe Joe's interperation of GW's words are incorrect. What do YOU think he meant by:

"[a]ll who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. We will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

Just curious, seems pretty cut and dry there, Force of arms means force of arms where I come from.

|2.22.05 @ 2:47PM|#

Andrew,

Its unfortunate that we stood on the sidelines re: the fight over South Africa.

|2.22.05 @ 2:50PM|#

My thoughts, Andrew, are that the bully pulpit of the presidency is best used for the denunciation of foreign tyrants and the endoresement of their opposition. I believe that Reagan's use of the office for this purpose was well executed, and I was pleased by much of what Bush had to say on this Europe trip. However, like Reagan, Bush's efficacy at the symbolic politics is compromised by his disreputable coddling of despicable tyrants. You can do realpolitik, or you can take the high road, but if you choose the latter, you have to swear off the former.

But the "force of arms" language is writing checks his ass can't cash.

|2.22.05 @ 3:07PM|#

I disagree that there can't be a middle ground between realpolitik behind the scenes and ambitious rhetoric behind the podium. The reason it doesn't work for Bush, though, is his credibility. If Afghanistan or Iraq had built support for his policies, rather than sapping it, all sorts of world leaders would have been sweating through that 2nd inaugural. But nobody believes what this guy says, so he's not going to be able to topple anybody with just a speech.

|2.22.05 @ 3:24PM|#

"You can do realpolitik, or you can take the high road, but if you choose the latter, you have to swear off the former."

I think that's bullshit. Every time I try to imagine a PURE and consistent foreign policy - ALL human rights, ALL of the time, or ALL mercantalism, ALL of the time - I not only can not persuade myself that such a thing would be practicable, I can't really imagine it would be desirable.

What Bush HAS done, is to shift the balance rather noticibly toward democracy promotion, and he has done so to about the right degree. If anyone differs with me on this, I would like to hear them get more specific. Does anyone think we should up the ante and force Pakistan to hold elections tomorrow - or does anyone think now, we shouldn't have done SOMETHING in Rwanda more than we did?

Cuz, like y'know, that - DUH! - would be consistent?

I would LOVE to discuss parameters here, rather than dance around hyperbolic and imaginary "examples". But I'm guessing the H&R regulars will need to snark and posture for about twenty more notes, before the discussion can become adult.

|2.22.05 @ 3:48PM|#

joe

Could you supply me with the list of dictators which Bush has coddled for the past four years, and which Clinton DIDN'T coddle for the previous eight?

While you're about it, could you work up the list of dictators Clinton tossed on the scrap heap - like Saddam and Omar?

(I will concede Clinton some credit on Milosovitch...and ain't it funny that he did that, without getting all cross-pressured and wound up in knots about Trujdman or - everybody's favorite - Vlad Putin?)

|2.22.05 @ 4:05PM|#

Andrew,

He was pressured by Yeltsin and Putin.

|2.22.05 @ 4:05PM|#

Andrew,

Clinton of course toppled the military dictatorship in Haiti.

|2.22.05 @ 4:14PM|#

"The reason it doesn't work for Bush, though, is his credibility. If Afghanistan or Iraq had built support for his policies, rather than sapping it, all sorts of world leaders would have been sweating through that 2nd inaugural. But nobody believes what this guy says, so he's not going to be able to topple anybody with just a speech."

Yeah.

It's just a coincidence that Khaddfiy in Libya suddenly started becoming more cooperative with the US after he saw what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

|2.22.05 @ 4:25PM|#

Actually, the Khaddfiy deal was mostly the result of British diplomacy. But you know, post hoc, propter hoc, whichever .... And would you care to balance Libyan disarmament with Pakistani black market arms sales AND North Korean arms expansion? (Lybia wasn't even that close .. they gave up practically nothing for some favorable headlines!)

Anyhow, that deal was struck before the inaugural. Even the most flawed logic couldn't assert that Bush's speech caused it ... "ante hoc propter hoc" is a whole new level of logical fallacy!

|2.22.05 @ 4:39PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

Libya was more cooperative with the U.S. & the UK starting in the late Clinton years.

And of course his actions haven't changed the behavior of the parts of the "axis."

|2.22.05 @ 4:50PM|#

post hoc propter hoc works the other way too

There was a lot of British diplomacy, therefore that caused Kaddafy to cave...cuz we all know that if Kadaffy makes nice noises to diplomats, that wouldn't be because he was just stringing them along, while he continued on his merry way, right?

That the Mid East balance of power changed more radically, in the weeks before he caved, than it had in the previous generation, wouldn't have had anything to do with the pleasant breakthrough in negotiations?

fyodor|2.22.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Andrew, basically you're saying it's just hot air but at least it's good hot air. If he really doesn't plan to back his words with military action (and if Justin Logan is wrong and no one really reads his words that way), then, hey fine, whatever, hope it works. Of course your one example, South Africa, involved economic sanctions and an electorate that, while obviously not representing the entire population, was enough of a democracy to make it distinctly different from places like North Korea, Iran or Myanmar. Maybe it's slightly similar to Saudi Arabia in that regard, but what chance is there of Saudi Arabia suffering the kind of economic sanctions placed on South Africa? If all Bush wants to do is use the bully pulpit, then I'm all for it, but then again, I don't expect it to matter much.

|2.22.05 @ 4:54PM|#

"Anyhow, that deal was struck before the inaugural. Even the most flawed logic couldn't assert that Bush's speech caused it ... "ante hoc propter hoc" is a whole new level of logical fallacy!"

Not the point, c.

You said GWB has no credibility when he says anything. Prior actions to use military force adds to credibility of the possibilty of using it again in the minds of those it would be used against.

|2.22.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

And your counter-example was inapposite.

Andrew,

That the Mid East balance of power changed more radically, in the weeks before he caved, than it had in the previous generation, wouldn't have had anything to do with the pleasant breakthrough in negotiations?

Your conclusion is based on the erroneous claim that he (or rather his son) suddenly caved right after the invasion, which wasn't the case of course.

|2.22.05 @ 4:59PM|#

The North Korean situation is a legacy of the Clinton strategy of trying to buy them off with a bunch of goodies in exchange for worthless promises that they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons.

Of course Clinton knew they couldn't be trusted but as long as he could kick the can down the road far enough so that it would become someone elses problem after he was out of office, that was fine with him.

|2.22.05 @ 5:01PM|#

Re: Libya,

To add insult to injury, what the Libyans did give up was a nuclear arms program that could barely be called such. For the Libyan regime it was a situation where they gave up very litte to gain a lot.

|2.22.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

Bush has been in office for four years now. Trying to fob off responsibility doesn't work at this stage of the game.

|2.22.05 @ 5:09PM|#

Anyway, I don't see where the Bush administration has any real policies in place at this point. From what I can apprehend, they appear to be floundering to find something to do internationally.

|2.22.05 @ 5:17PM|#

GG

I really don't care what you think "works" or not.

It was the policy set by the Clinton administration that taught the North Koreans that they could profitably play their game of nuclear blackmail. A game that they're continuing today.

Bush is president now so of course he has to deal with it. If he winds up continuing to follow Clinton's policy lead of appeasment, he will ultimately fail in that resposibility.

|2.22.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

I really don't care what you think "works" or not.

Why have a conversation with people then? That seems rather pointless.

It was the policy set by the Clinton administration that taught the North Koreans that they could profitably play their game of nuclear blackmail. A game that they're continuing today.

And Bush has had four years to resolve the issue. Now, it would be slightly different if this were say August 2001, I'd be much more willing to cut Bush slack, but in fact it is February 2005, over four years since Clinton left office.

|2.22.05 @ 6:15PM|#

Bully pulpit, sanctions and the credible option of military force. That's leadership. As much leadership as the world requires, as much leadership as the US can supply, as much leadership as we should supply. Bush is doing his job - and if the Europeans dislike who's doing it, that is their problem, not ours.

|2.22.05 @ 6:16PM|#

Gil's comments have advanced all the way from "nuh-uh!" to "you too!" I expect the rubber and the glue to make their appearance any time now.

Andrew, "What Bush HAS done, is to shift the balance rather noticibly toward democracy promotion, and he has done so to about the right degree." Bush has pulled back significantly - not "hasn't pushed as hard as some might like," but actively scaled back America's democracy promotion efforts - in Russia, China (that's most of the non-democratic world right there, btw), Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Kyrg...um, Turkmenistan's neighbor, Turkey (irt their Kurdish minority, taking "democracy" to encompass human rights), Equitorial Guinea, Nigeria...hell, all of subsaharan Africa, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia (anyone else remeber VP Al Gore shoving it up the Prime Minister's ass during an ASEAN meeting?), and Burma. Just off the top of my head.

In exchange, he has pushed very hard for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, finally, he is making some noises about getting serious about it in other countries, like Egypt. Best wishes for the latest initiative, and here's hoping that four years of winks, nods, and "extraordinary renditions" don't make his efforts moot. Assuming he actually follows throug with those efforts.

|2.22.05 @ 6:18PM|#

"Bully pulpit, sanctions and the credible option of military force."

Let me know when you see those sanctions. And let me know when the threat of military force becomes credible. Right now, thanks to Iraq, we're not particularly credible. Assuming that his invasion demonstrates the credible will to use military force, the quagmire we're in makes such threats operationally incredible.

Here's hoping China doesn't jump the straits.

|2.22.05 @ 6:39PM|#

joe

You can expect to see sanctions on Syria promptly, and today's agenda item was maintaining EU sanctions on China and Iran. That is just three examples from today's google headlines...can you flesh out any of your examples?

I think China's a LOT more likely to cut off N Korea's remaining power supplies, than to jump the straits, and if the US doesn't look pretty threatening to the Mullahs right now, they're doing a damn good job of playing it off that way.

It used to be that a dictator under sanctions needed to ask but two questions:

A.) Will sanctions last?

B.) Can I soak up the pressure?

Now there is a third question:

C.) What happens when the US becomes disappointed with sanctions?

To get back to specifics...what do you want - apart from "balanced trade" at the expense of American consumers, whenever the AFL-CIO cries poor?

|2.22.05 @ 7:41PM|#

Andrew,

Bully pulpit, sanctions and the credible option of military force.

Well, Bush has one out of three - the bully pulpit. Bush doesn't have the ability to impose sanctions - besides an embargo and other like acts by the U.S. - against either North Korea or Iran, and he doesn't possess the military option he would need to take out their nuclear facilities - an invasion.

You can expect to see sanctions on Syria promptly...

That's not because Bush is leading the way on the matter or otherwise convincing people with his rhetoric; the French were ahead of Bush on this issue by a couple of years in fact.

...and today's agenda item was maintaining EU sanctions on China and Iran.

The EU's arms embargo against China is going; not like it meant anything anyway, since its non-binding on the member states and has never stopped a nation in the EU from sending advanced technology to the PRC when it wanted to.

What sanctions does the EU have against Iran currently? They certainly cannot be trade sanctions, given the massive investment there by European firms - be it in the form of new automobile plants, oil production facilities, electronics factories, etc.

So your examples are inapposite.

I think China's a LOT more likely to cut off N Korea's remaining power supplies...

China has consistently shied away from any direct confrontation with North Korea; unless you can point to some evidence to a change in policy, I'll treat this claim with the grain of salt that it deserves.

...and if the US doesn't look pretty threatening to the Mullahs right now, they're doing a damn good job of playing it off that way.

Actually, the Mullahs have largely been defiant and the U.S. has no support in Europe - even in the U.K. - for attacking Iran.

C.) What happens when the US becomes disappointed with sanctions?

Nothing. The U.S. doesn't possess - because of our current engagements - the ability to launch a ground assault against countries like North Korea or Iran. And air attack yes, but an air attack would not neutralize their weapons facilities given that they are numerous, hidden, etc.

Suffice it to say, all of your claims have fallen by the wayside when put to examination.

|2.22.05 @ 7:44PM|#

Bush spoke his mind on a few matters and the EU essentially shrugged. Shit, even Bush's supposed victory in engaging all the EU in aiding Iraq is tokenist at best. The resources applied to the matter are miniscule as are the personnel.

|2.22.05 @ 7:45PM|#

I think my original point stands; Bush hasn't a clue as to where he wants to go next foreign policy wise and his options are limited based on the continuing costs and burdens of his past actions.

|2.22.05 @ 8:13PM|#

Another point joe

If you really want to save our fire for the big ones...

(I assume you mean Iran and NK...or is your reasoning that we should be MORE afraid of Russia and China now, than we were during the Cold War - or during the 90's when Clinton was down-sizing us to the UK?)

...then why get us involved in Burma, or Malaya or Nigeria?

That's what I meant by parameters. Criteria. Guidelines that make some kind of sense.

The urgency of the crisis, the interests of the US otherwise, and the feasibility of doing anything. Maybe even how ostentatious the occasion may be...but I would have trouble explaining that to a grieving military family.

|2.22.05 @ 9:51PM|#

Andrew,

There are no parameters or guidelines of course. And there is no real agenda. That's why Bush is now flailing around to figure out what do FP wise.

|2.22.05 @ 10:03PM|#

"Bully pulpit, sanctions and the credible option of military force."

You know, this phrase has been rattling around in my head, and I finally realize where I've heard it before; this was the stance recommended by the majority of Americans who opposed launching an invasion of Iraq in Spring 2003. And you, Andrew, derided it at the time as pissant, America-hating, cowardly capitulation to Saddam.

It is also the general thrust of the foreign policy outlined by John Kerry, which you, Andrew, derided in exactly the same terms.

I'm glad you've seen the light.

|2.23.05 @ 2:15AM|#

joe

Credibility means actually invading some time. And I don't think I ever called anyone a pissant...and the foreign policy of Kerry pre-invasion was, as near as I can tell, to invade - Dean scared him of that, later. Thereafter his foreign policy came to depend on sun-spot activity, or something.

|2.23.05 @ 3:34AM|#

Anyway joe, I would like to know more about this foreign policy view I have accidentally stumbled upon (Bush too? to his great success in Europe?).

Every time I ask for details, I get some tape from the election season "Bush is a dummy - Kerry speaks French" Is the "credible threat of force" that Kerry would have said "I fought for my country thirty-five years ago - I'll fight for it today" Don't mess with an Admiral's pet!

Hell, that didn't even convince Americans.

Well, get some sleep. You obviously can't hold up your end of this.

|2.23.05 @ 4:01AM|#

Andrew,

When it comes to not being able to hold up one's end of an argument you are hardly one to talk. You've made a whole series of claims that turned out to be either false or highly misleading.

|2.23.05 @ 10:39AM|#

What this article is saying is that Dubya is like a carpenter whose only tool is a hammer.
What a wonderful world it would be if he would go to vocational night school and take a course in using the level.