Secretary of State Condi Rice

The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller has written a long piece on the relationship between President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Why? This explanation is as good as another: Rice, who is a major source for the story, is thinking about spending a second Bush term in Foggy Bottom.

Rice says the right things and has little trouble abandoning her preferred political philosophy for Bush's pseudo-religious ruminations:

"[S]he says she has melded her realism ? the view that great powers act in their own self-interest ? with what she calls Mr. Bush's idealism, or what his critics say is his na?ve belief in a 'moral' American foreign policy that can spread democracy throughout the world… The president likes to focus "on this issue of universal values and freedom," and after Sept. 11, [Rice] said, "I found myself seeing the value of that."

With no ass to kiss, Bush explained why he liked Rice:

"She's fun to be with… I like lighthearted people, not people who take themselves so seriously." Besides, he said, "She's really smart!"

Comments

[Kate]

"Our moral, idealistic foreign policy seems to mean letting Putin kill as many Chechens as he wants, so he won't make trouble."

The Chechens have been rather busy poking sticks at the bear of late - hostage taking, suicide bombings. In the current atmosphere, that's a tactic that's not likely to get you nominated for Official International Sympathy. (Unless you're blowing up Jews, of course.)

[joe]

They're poking the bear because it's in their living room, breaking things. But the point is not to say one side or the other is right. The point is that the situation is getting worse and worse, and we've ceded our ability to lean on Putin to behave in a civilized manner.

[dhex]

mona: bellah, thanks, at least i got the first letter right. his was the last book i was forced to read on the topic in my last religious studies class. it always struck me as wishful thinking more than anything else because of the rapidly increasing rate of cultural change, influx of new religious minorities and cultural minorities, etc. and because it has that social sciences lurch towards a universal theory of everything...a beautiful, simple knot under which to bundle all the chaos. there may very well be themes under which we can great these large groupings, but they're hardly as specific as they're dressed up to be. it's more like "big monkey tell me to do this, big monkey always right."

[Jean Bart]

Zathras,

I wholly agree with your comments.

[Dan]

Count me as pro-spreading liberal democracy, anti-war. How useful is an "Operation Iraqi Freedom," when it requires sucking up to tyrants from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Egypt?

Extremely useful, assuming you consider human life and freedom more important than self-righteousness.

Failure to improve EVERY shithole in the world doesn't lessen the importance of improving the ones you can.

[James Merritt]

To paraphrase a sage comment of yesteryear, "The government that is big enough to give the whole world 'freedom' is big enough to take it all away" -- probably in the same stroke.

From all I have seen and read over several decades, I don't get the impression that the people who founded this country ever expected or wanted it to be a superpower, much less to spread "freedom" under those auspices, through conquest. It seems more likely that they wanted us to keep our own house in order, demonstrating the power and desirability of freedom, and speading its benefits world wide through cultural exchange and trade. Historical evidence would suggest that such an approach were actually more effective than the approach of military intervention or conquest. So why are "freedom-loving" Americans rushing to embrace the latter rather than demand the former? My own answer is that "freedom" has nothing to do with it.

[AL]

RE: Zathras and jean Bart

Your assessment of Condoleeza Rice may very well be correct, but, as someone who has wasted too much time ?slogging? through media spin masquerading as truth, I would have appreciated a more fact-based version rather than the titillating water cooler gossip version. Does Ms. Rice have a snotty secretary or two who doesn?t like her? Is this at all related to a persistent reluctant to grant women a measure of authority without finding a way to diminish their influence? No, I am not going to make any kind of sexist argument. That is too passe, but I will suggest - for the sake of impact on a public that is dead tired of gossip - that you put your facts where your mouths are and let them speak for themselves.

[AL]

Cx: "J"ean Bart

persistent "reluctance"

I can't unplug this smarty pants wordprocessor feature that keeps changing words on me.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Zathras the Great, the man who can review restaurants without tasting the food.

[Jon H]

Betcha they're prepping to name her as Bush's running mate.

[Mona]

R.C. asks: "Mona - what nations are you talking about? To my knowledge, the war on terror has involved 'coercion' of Afghanistan and Iraq. While the government of neither nation 'wanted our help' with the establishment of liberal democracy, I haven't really seen much evidence that the people of either nation pine for a return to the glory days of the Taliban and Saddam."

Agreed. Afghanistan was a justified war quite regardless of whether the populace wanted us there or not, because the govt was harboring and supporting people who fly airplanes into our centers of commerce and govt. As it happens, a lot of the Afghani population was delighted and benefited greatly by our kicking Taliban ass.

As far as Iraq goes, I think that Saddam's having tried to assassinate a former U.S. president is enough reason to attack him, especially in light of his intransigent refusal to let UN weapons inspectors do their job -- regardless of whether he had WMDs, put them in Syria, or whatever. Trying to kill one of our past heads of state kinda strikes me as an act of war, but maybe that's just me. (Clinton's response was inadequate.)

In addition, there was good reason to believe that the majority of Iraqis would be most happy to see Saddam deposed, a belief borne out after Saddfam's fall. So, in addition to our own interests of state, we were/are doing a good deed for a people who benefit enormously.

Where I balk, is in situations where some genocidal tyrant is making his people miserable, but minds his business where the U.S. is concerened. If said tyrant is "only" initiating a mountain of force against people within his national borders, does that ever become my/our concern? After a great deal of reflection, I think it often does become that; this legitimate concern, however, must be tempered by realism/pragmatism. And I categorically oppose conscription, even when such interventions may be in order.

And just so everyone knows, you cannot call *me* a Neocon, cuz I've already been exposed as a leftwinger in the immigration thread. 🙂

[Don]

Joe wrote: "Count me as pro-spreading liberal democracy, anti-war. How useful is an "Operation Iraqi Freedom," when it requires sucking up to tyrants from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Egypt?"

Operation Iraqi Freedom has freed us from relance on Saudi Arabia. It may have also made the likes of Kadafi see the light. And how much sucking up did we do with Russia, anyway? Iraq was a client nation, we didn't suck up to them on this, we rolled them over.

Joe wrote: "Our moral, idealistic foreign policy seems to mean letting Putin kill as many Chechens as he wants, so he won't make trouble."

As I recall, the Russians were killing quite a few Chechens back in the 90s.

[Don]

"I'm not looking for democracy to take over the globe in one fell swoop, but for it to grow over a period of time, from many scattered seeds. . . . the growth of democracy, like any other worthwhile endevour, comes about from slow, steady efforts to push the ball forward."

Reagan engaged the Soviets in an arms race, destroying their economic system (much sooner than if it had been left to fall under its own weight). In doing that, the Reagan administration supported various nasty dictators around the world.

Prior to that, Carter withdrew support from the Shah. As a consequence, radical Islamics siezed Iran, and the US lost a useful ally in the Middle East.

Reagan's approach worked, and destroyed the greatest threat of the last half of the 20th Century. Carter's ad-hoc approach failed, both in terms of the US national interest and the Iranian people.

I tend to view Bush's Iraq approach more in line with Reagan than Carter. Iraq puts the like of Quadafi on notice, and puts the US in a better position in the Middle East--namely, LESS reliance on Saudi Arabia. It takes a major potential supporter of international terror out of the picture.

Your "pushing the ball forward" sounds like a lot of soft talk from the silly-assed like of Carter.

[R. C. Dean]

How odd, to see a libertarian site refer to "universal values and freedom" as "pseudo-religious ruminations."

I see nothing particularly contradictory in regarding the spread of liberal democracy (in the old sense of the term) as being in the long-term enlightened self-interest of the United States. It seems to me that Condi's remarks amount to no more than an affirmation of this notion. Odd, indeed, that this notion is treated with contempt on a libertarian site.

[Andrew]

The only guys sucking up to Putin this year are Chirac and Schroeder.

I don't know what we can do about Chechens or Tibetans, but the spread of liberty to 50 million people in the last two years sure didn't hurt them.

"Z"s complaints about Rice sound like Washingtonese for "not-much-of-anything"...with which Jean Bart predictably whole-heartedly concurs.

[TM Lutas]

I see the "idealistic" stands as an instantiation of this highly practical, if audacious strategy for national security.

Worldwide freedom has become in the US national interest. Policy thus changes and the realists are coming on board. It's both counterproductive and unrealistic to think that it won't be dressed up in ways that provide political advantage.

[Mona]

R.C. Dean writes: "How odd, to see a libertarian site refer to 'universal values and freedom' as 'pseudo-religious ruminations.'"

Agreed. Bush does load his rhetoric with appeals to American civil religion -- nothing "pseudo" about that core set of beliefs and rituals. It is a phenomenon as old as -- older, really -- the republic, and the founders, Lincoln, Reagan and scads of other politicos from left and right have also invoked this glue that bonds the American polity. (See http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/sherrill_indy.php) What Mr. Young dismisses as pseudo is a well-researched subject among students of religious studies.

Like Mr. Dean, I am not all that opposed to spreading liberal democracy around the world. My sticking point is, however, the adoption of coercion for nations where the people may not want our help with that. And of course, talk of conscription usually arises when we are engaged in foreign interventions, and that is about as appalling and non-libertarian a notion as there can be.

[joe]

Count me as pro-spreading liberal democracy, anti-war. How useful is an "Operation Iraqi Freedom," when it requires sucking up to tyrants from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Egypt?

Our moral, idealistic foreign policy seems to mean letting Putin kill as many Chechens as he wants, so he won't make trouble.

[dhex]

personally, i always thought the whole "civil religion" schtick of belulah (sp?) and them was a bit strained and an awful lot of wishful thinking, really. a desire to see national unity, for whatever reason. i'd like to believe people are a bit more individual than that, because most of us don't necessarily seem to share values outside of minding our own business.

which is more than enough for me, personally.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Argument by insult I see; how typical of you.

Afghanistan is hardly "free"; its returning to what it was. And as far as I can tell, the U.S. doesn't care (neither does Europe, but that's really beside the point).

BTW, both Berlusconi and Bush gave Putin a pass on the sham-election in Chechnya in 2003; they both sucked up to Putin and his regime of thugs. Neither France, Great Britain nor Germany gave Putin's government such a pass.

Don,

Reagan largely adopted Carter's foreign policy; he continued funding the insurgents in Afghanistan; he continued funding the insurgents in Nicaragua; he continued the military build-up that was already occurring under Carter. This supposed sea-change that is claimed to be due to the Reagan Presidency is to be quite blunt, a myth. What did occur is that Reagan got a good PR team in with him.

"Reagan engaged the Soviets in an arms race, destroying their economic system (much sooner than if it had been left to fall under its own weight)."

Prove the causal connection between the two correlated variables.

[Mona]

dhex writes: "personally, i always thought the whole "civil religion" schtick of belulah (sp?) and them was a bit strained and an awful lot of wishful thinking,"

Bellah, Robert, who wrote a left/communitarian book addressing civil religion in the 80s, Habits of the Heart. (He had written articles about it beginning in the 60s, however, the idea is not original with him, and is now pervasive among sociologists, historians and cultural anthropoligists.) Bellah and many others are extensively quoted and linked in the url I posted.

Lincoln particularly spoke the language of our civil religion, and its themes, tenets and rituals are captured in "The Battle HYMN of the Republic." Max Weber and others were discussing civil religion long before Bellah.

I do not adhere to most of the beliefs of our civil religion, as, among other things, I do not believe a deity chose America to be a "New Jersualem" and "shining city on a hill." I am partial to the idea of inherent rights, but I do not think a Creator endowed us with them -- a central tenet of our civil religion. But many Americans still hold such views, and Reagan exploited that well, as have many or most of his predecessors.

[R. C. Dean]

My sticking point is, however, the adoption of coercion for nations where the people may not want our help with that.

Mona - what nations are you talking about? To my knowledge, the war on terror has involved "coercion" of Afghanistan and Iraq. While the government of neither nation "wanted our help" with the establishment of liberal democracy, I haven't really seen much evidence that the people of either nation pine for a return to the glory days of the Taliban and Saddam.

In Iraq the people who didn't use to be Baathists seem to be quite happy to accept our help. Do I take it you were in favor of the Iraq invasion?

How useful is an "Operation Iraqi Freedom," when it requires sucking up to tyrants from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Egypt?

Pretty goddam useful when the goal is getting rid of Saddam and establishing a more functional government in Iraq. If you wait for an opportunity to establish liberal democracy over the entire globe in one fell swoop, while never doing business with anyone you wouldn't invite over for dinner, you will be waiting a very long time. While the body count mounts, I might add.

[Zathras]

I hate to be a wet blanket here, but we're talking about a prospect for "failing upward" in Condi Rice.

The fact is that she has not been a successful National Security Adviser. She has provided quickie briefings and emotional support for a President largely ignorant of and inexperienced with foreign affairs, and that's basically it. She hasn't been effective in coordinating advice and planning from the various national security departments, hasn't been an effective spokesman for American foreign policy, and appears to be only theoretically in control of her own staff at the NSC.

The one thing she does clearly have is the confidence of the President, and in that respect she would be an improvement on Colin Powell, who doesn't. That kind of confidence, though, while essential for able officials to succeed will not prevent less able people from failing, and Rice falls into the latter category.

[joe]

If a more functional, liberal government emerges in Iraq, that would be a great step forward for Iraqis, no question. But is it worth waiving our ability to successfully push for gradual reform in dozens of other countries?

I'm not looking for democracy to take over the globe in one fell swoop, but for it to grow over a period of time, from many scattered seeds. Toppling statues, capturing deposed tyrants, and filling squares with young men pumping their fists may be a lot of fun, but the growth of democracy, like any other worthwhile endevour, comes about from slow, steady efforts to push the ball forward.

[Don]

Jean Bart: "Prove the causal connection between the two correlated variables."

Jean, of course it can't be proven in a scientific sense. But then, neither can anything else in the real of politics, history, and for that mater economics. But the facts support my position, and this reason book review does a good job of presenting those facts:

http://www.reason.com/0311/cr.gg.the.shtml

[Don]

"Don, would that soft-headed Carterism include the enduring peace between Israel and Egypt? The carrot and stick that brought Gorbachev to power and cut the legs out from under the Soviet empire?"

Joe, Carter came late to the peace between Israel & Egypt. It was Sadat & Begin had basically worked out the peace plan using the aid of several East European dictators, including Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Carter only came into the deal due to the need to finance it, i.e., American tax dollers.

As for Mikhail Gorbachev, he was the General Secretary of the Communist Party 1985 to 1991. From 1978 to 1985 he served as Secretary of the Central Committee with responsibility for agriculture.

See http://www.reason.com/0311/cr.gg.the.shtml to see how Reagan won the Cold War.

[Don]

"You're inability to come to grips with courses of action other than hails of bullets and group hugs demonstrates a distinct lack of imagination."

Look to the links in my replies above for "courses of action" with REAL imagination: Reagans. Defeating the Soviet Union without going into WW3. The greatest feat of any president in the century, at the very least.

[Dan]

Historical evidence would suggest that such an approach were actually more effective than the approach of military intervention or conquest.

Except that historical evidence indicates the exact opposite. War, not "setting an example", freed the slaves in the Southern states. War, whether the "hot" World War Two or the Cold War, liberated Europe and established democracies where fascism and totalitarianism and reigned.

So why are "freedom-loving" Americans rushing to embrace the latter rather than demand the former?

Because "the latter" works and "the former" lets us feel good about ourselves while the bodies pile ever higher (see: 1939-1941, 1991-2003).

Are you really naive enough to believe that Iraq would have become peaceful, democratic and humane if we just set a good example? It was non-democratic because it was ruled by a fascist dictatorship, not because the people thought democracy was icky. Contrary to popular mythology, it is virtually impossible for an oppressed people to overthrow a totalitarian government without outside military assistance or the total economic collapse of the totalitarian government in question. In fact, it's never actually happened, ever.

Would our founding fathers have agreed? Probably not, but our founding fathers were wrong about a lot of stuff. Many thought keeping slaves was perfectly fine. Few thought women deserved the same rights as men. Many felt that speaking out against the United States government should be punishable by imprisonment. They favored keeping "democracy" restricted and in the hands of an educated elite. These are just a few examples; there are countless others. They were visionaries, but neither their vision nor their moral judgement was perfect. They were products both of their time and of the idealism of the Enlightenment.

My own answer is that "freedom" has nothing to do with it.

Freedom has everything to do with it. Not because we're such nice, philanthropic people -- it's not our job to be the world's guardian angel -- but because democracies are the safest kind of nation for us to deal with. If the whole world was nothing but democracies, the United States would be as safe as it's ever likely to be.

And THAT is why we want democracy in Iraq. Because a free Iraq is a safe -- for us -- Iraq. The "Brutal dictator + oppressed Muslims" formula is not working out for American interests at all.

[joe]

Actually, Don, if you want to argue in favor of open warfare over soft power in bringing about liberalization in dictatorships, I don't think the bloodless history of Reagan/Gorby/Arms Control/Berlin Wall Speech et al is a very good way to go about it. Did we invade Eastern Europe? Um, no. We used carrots and sticks to induce internal change without giving the dictator any ammunition to rally the public against us. And I note that we don't have to station an occupation force in Warsaw to keep things from reverting to tyranny or anarchy.

[Andrew]

Jean

Afghanistan is a concern, but it isn't over yet. That it IS a concern is, in my opinion, largely because we invited the EUachs and UNachs in-- they are fucking it up, just like they fucked up post-war Bosnia-- just like they are fucking up the French mission in the Ivory Coast (minus "unilateralism" France would have resolved that problem long since now).

I am uneasy about the former communist 'stans. I don't care about their oil, and am unpersuaded of the security need (especially now that the Gulf region has seen such a shift).

At least they are "former" communists. I would cheerfully settle for a corrupt tantric-fundamentalist thug in Tibet...not an inapposite description of pre-Maoist Tibet.

A "free" Chechnya looks to be another 'stan. What will Putin turn out to be like? Who can say-- when he is listening to Chirac and Schroeder, I doubt he is getting good advice.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"Afghanistan is a concern, but it isn't over yet. That it IS a concern is, in my opinion, largely because we invited the EUachs and UNachs in-- they are fucking it up, just like they fucked up post-war Bosnia-- just like they are fucking up the French mission in the Ivory Coast (minus 'unilateralism' France would have resolved that problem long since now)."

Its obvious that the U.S. isn't there for the long-term; therefore they enlist the aid of other countries. I'm not sure what France would do to solve the issues in Cote d'Ivorie.

"At least they are 'former' communists. I would cheerfully settle for a corrupt tantric-fundamentalist thug in Tibet...not an inapposite description of pre-Maoist Tibet."

I see you buy into the PRC propaganda. Regarding the Tibetan government in exile; it is far more democratic and liberal than the current government in Beijing.

"A 'free' Chechnya looks to be another 'stan. What will Putin turn out to be like? Who can say-- when he is listening to Chirac and Schroeder, I doubt he is getting good advice."

Schroder's named is not spelled with an "e." It has an umlaut over the "o." Putin wants to return to the days of Russia as a "great power"; well super power even. He's going to do whatever is neccessary to see that happen.

[Andrew]

Jean

Can't do an umlaut on my keyboard. An umlaut is a diacritical mark that serves as shorthand for the "e"-- astonished that you didn't know this! (An invention of the monks who kept European culture alive during the Dark Ages-- convenient when transcribing manuscripts by hand.)

The Tibetan government in exile is quite different from the Tibet the Dalai Lama fled. It is unlikely that a free Tibet would restore the Dalai Lama to just the situation China dissolved. Among other things, a thugocracy seems possible.

Although I suspect the French first intervened to save the central government, their use of a UN pretext has gotten them entangled with brokering a "peace process" that is keeping the conflict going.

I am sure the French government would prefer to just finish the rebels off, but they get the same result anyone else does when they touch the UN "neutrality" tar-baby. They can't act in a way that serves their own interest...or anyone else's.

Sometime soon, they will probably just leave.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"Can't do an umlaut on my keyboard. An umlaut is a diacritical mark that serves as shorthand for the "e"-- astonished that you didn't know this! (An invention of the monks who kept European culture alive during the Dark Ages-- convenient when transcribing manuscripts by hand.)"

Get a more exact keyboard then; monks generally destroyed or otherwise ignored European culture prior to the High Middle Ages, when humanism began to take hold. And it was them raiding the Muslim libraries in Sicily and Spain that brought the knowledge of Avicenna, Aristotle, etc. to Europe.

"The Tibetan government in exile is quite different from the Tibet the Dalai Lama fled. It is unlikely that a free Tibet would restore the Dalai Lama to just the situation China dissolved. Among other things, a thugocracy seems possible."

Hmm, the Dalai Lama is largely supported by Tibetans in Tibet; it would be the now majority Han that he would have to deal with.

"Although I suspect the French first intervened to save the central government, their use of a UN pretext has gotten them entangled with brokering a 'peace process' that is keeping the conflict going."

We intervened to stop a genocide (Chirac wasn't going to make the same mistake as Mitterand did in Rawanda), to protect French industry there, and to honor our defense agreement with Cote d'Ivorie.

[joe]

Don, would that soft-headed Carterism include the enduring peace between Israel and Egypt? The carrot and stick that brought Gorbachev to power and cut the legs out from under the Soviet empire?

Libya has been negotiating away its WMD program for years.

Turkey abolished its repressive anti-Kurd laws a couple years ago under pressure from Europe. Perhaps you missed that - no neato graphics on Fox, after all. Do you think Europe would have been able to apply this pressure if they were trying to buy Turkey's support for a war?

You're inability to come to grips with courses of action other than hails of bullets and group hugs demonstrates a distinct lack of imagination.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, how exactly does one go about "melding" her self-interest doctrine (which is really just a re-play of Kissinger's ideas) with Bush's "morality" doctrine? There is a neccessary disconnect here; sometimes self-interest and "morality" will not go hand in hand (indeed, I think that it can be argued that much or even most of the time that will be the case). You can see that disconnect play out in America's relationship with Turkmenistan (or any of the dysfunctional, autocratic, human rights abusing states in Central Asia).

[Jason]

Two words, Joe: COLD WAR. The Soviets supplied the North Koreans and North Vietnamese in shooting wars, but never got involved in a direct conflict.

On the subject of nuclear war, Reagan told Gorbachev, "I can assure you, we will not lose." We never had to go to war against the Eastern Bloc because Gorbachev backed down. Had Saddam done the same, we would not have gone to war against him either.

Islamists, however, have directly attacked us. They have decided what they want. Here it is, in descending order:

1) Bring the US down to be dominated by Shari'a law.

2) If we will not accept, we must all die.

3) If they cannot kill us, they will die trying.

I don't like 1 and 2. That just leaves us with 3. But hey, why don't you go ask them nicely to leave us alone? I'm sure they'll tell you they will. Then they'll go ahead and kill us anyway. They don't have to keep promises to infidels, you know.

[Don]

Joe,

Reagan's success, IMHO, was in part due to a perceived willingness to use arms. Maybe the American left helped out by playing up Reagan's reckless cowboy image.

The inability to get Saddam to come clean (if he didn't have WMDs, he sure wasn't acting like that was the case) was based on the fact that he didn't think we had the balls to clean house in Iraq. Now he and other tinhorn dictators know otherwise. I think W had to make it clear to the world that we mean buisness. I think this was the case because of 8 years of Clinton and Bush 41's wrap up of Gulf War 1 (turning off the war too soon; letting Saddam fly gunships in the no-fly zone).

[Nike Dunk Shoes]

thanks