Neoconservatives on Foreign Policy: The War on Nuance

As Eric points out, what is probably the most instructive aspect of the candidates’ differences on Iraq is what it shows about their strategic worldview. Obama’s early and continued opposition to the second invasion of Iraq demonstrates his larger rejection of the Bush Doctrine as a whole. McCain, no doubt unwilling to publicly agree with President Bush’s policies and their corresponding unpopularity, has been much less vocal, but his speeches indicate that he is in at least partial agreement with the Bush Doctrine. Furthermore, McCain’s pattern of impulsive decision making (last minute selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate, his campaign “suspension” and flip-flops over whether or not to debate at all Friday night, to name a few of the most recent examples) lends weight to suspicions that President McCain would happily continue the disastrous Bush foreign policy.

The cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, and the neoconservative worldview as a whole, is a distorted worldview terrifyingly short of perspective, history, and context. Eric reminds us that the “War on Terror” didn’t start with 9/11, and points out terrorist attacks on the USA during the 1990s

Actually, Eric doesn’t go back far enough in time. The terrorists of the 1990s were not attacking Americans for no reason at all, or because they hated freedom. On the contrary, America has a bipartisan history of bungling, selfish policies in the Middle East that helped create the situation we’re in today. Since World War II, American foreign policy has rested on the principle of backing countries whose leaders were friendly to us, regardless of how they treated their people. In most of the world, this meant supporting anti-Communist crooks like Batista in 1950s Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in pre 1949 China, both cases that soured our relations with those nations when popular Communist regimes that were somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people took power. In the Middle East, this realpolitik strategy meant supporting pro-American dictators instead of Arab Nationalists or Muslim Fundamentalists. The classic case was in Iran, where America backed the highly oppressive Shah (King) who was finally overthrown in 1979 by Islamic revolutionaries. Although with hindsight, their theocratic oppression seems worse than the Shah’s secular brand, the revolutionaries of 1979 were responding to many legitimate grievances and offering relative freedom to many Iranians. Since America had helped the Shah to obtain power via coup, and backed his military forces that kept him on the throne, the US was seen as an enemy to Iran, leading to the burning of the American embassy and that famous hostage crisis.

Responding to the threat from Iran, America supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein, who's dictatorship in Iraq was seen as a useful spoiler to Iranian power in the region. The bloody war instigated by Saddam against Iran lasted for most of the 1980s. By the time it was over, millions were dead. Meanwhile, America had given weapons to Iran as well, deciding that it was best to keep both nations fighting each other, cynically betting that they’d be too busy to bother America while they were slaughtering each other. Obviously, when word of this leaked out, American standing in the region fell considerably.

America’s national image is not only tarnished for our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, but for all the other cynical interventions and misadventures carried out by presidents of both parties over the years. Anyone who is surprised people dislike America needs to read their history.

That covers two of the members Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Leaving aside North Korea for the time being, Afghanistan should be mentioned. Eric is correct that the Clinton administration did not take the opportunity to nab Osama Bin Laden in Sudan during the 1990s when it could have. But the Bush administration is responsible for ignoring the memos left by the Clinton policymakers warning that Bin Laden was the #1 threat to US security in 2001. Instead, Bush’s cabinet myopically focused on China until 9/11. Worse, Bush is guilty of obsessing over Iraq when in reality it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Islamists like Bin Laden and secular thugs like Saddam do not get along. But it’s probably too much to expect such subtleness from an administration that invented the Axis of Evil. The kindergarten simplicity of linking the mortal enemies of Iran and Iraq together with Kim Jong Il’s crackpot regime is stupefying, though typical.

As far as Eric’s claim that “wars in Iraq and Afghanistan produced more tangible results” than anywhere else turns logic on its head. The reasons Iran and North Korea are able to pursue nuclear weapons more freely now is because America got entangled in the ridiculous sideshow that is Iraq. We’ve severely harmed our moral authority by invading an independent country—however mean their leader was—without sufficient proof of danger. We’re too busy to effectively threaten Iran and North Korea now, and much of the world is busy pointing that out. How can we tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia with a straight face? Not being a blatant hypocrite is a big advantage in foreign policy. Eric mentions the crisis in Darfur. Had America not been involved in Iraq, we could have intervened in Darfur for humanitarian reasons, doing a good deed and clamping down on a country that breeds terrorism.

The choice of Barack Obama as president would represent a break with the almost unprecedentedly stupid policies of the Bush administration, and perhaps a break with the diplomacy of the post World War II era. Having a president who admits when America screws up, as every country does sometimes, would go a long way toward repairing the American image abroad. It would also put a man in the White House who understands that you can’t fight international terrorism by alienating most of the world through arrogance and stupidity, and that you need a sophisticated, subtle strategy to fight Al Qaeda, not the crude, bludgeoning tactics of the over simplistic neoconservatives. The Bush approach failed, and we need a chief executive who can appreciate that and move on.

Eric covered a great deal in his last post, and I’ve said a lot here, so I’ll respond to the rest of his comments about Europe, NATO and the UN in a separate post.

In the meantime, register to vote, people! The deadline in most states is between October 4 and 7.

-Ian

The Bush Doctrine Defended: Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy

The war has been a major subject of debate in recent years which, I believe, peaked with the 2006 Democratic sweeps of the House and Senate. Their victories were a direct result of lack of support for the war among the population. Since then, however, the war has taken a back seat to gas prices and the economy due mainly to the fact that things are much better in Iraq than two years ago. This is mainly the result of the surge that McCain was a strong advocate for. On a side note, there would not be a need for a surge if Bush would have have an adequate amount of troops for the campaign in the first place. So on that note, he dropped the ball big time on that one. If you're going to fight a war, fight it.

While I would like to focus more on what our current policy should be, I must devote some time to dispel some myths and talk about results of the Bush doctrine and our national image abroad.
The Myths:
First, we must remember that the war on terror did not start on September 11th 2001. There were the US embassy bombings, Khobar Towers Bombings, USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. For so long America's response was weak in response to these attacks. Osama bin Laden was offered to the United States by Sudan during the Clinton administration but the President chose not to bring him into custody.

Second, the whole mantra "Bush lied, people died" is poppycock. He never lied about the weapons. He made the wrong assessment on whether they existed but he never lied. If he lied, then Hillary Clinton lied, John Kerry lied and a whole host of Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators lied too. They had the intelligence briefings that Bush had and they authorized Bush to go to war in the first place. Remember, Congress controls the power of the purse. By the bye, if the Democrats want to leave Iraq so bad, they could have left in 2006 when they took control of the House and Senate by cutting off funding. We still have yet to leave Iraq even though that was the platform the Dems ran on in 2006 to win, so who's kidding who?

Third, this is not a war for oil. If it was, we would be reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil which now abundantly flows and has provided Iraq with an $80 billion dollar surplus.


Bush Doctrine and National Image:
The Bush Doctrine supports preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. President Bush made a statement of this principle in his September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress saying, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." As I write to this day, I concede that world opinion has fallen for the United States. Many countries and leaders do not like our "Cowboy Diplomacy" and they have used the United Nations, primarily funded by the U.S., as a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is by going it alone. However, we only need to look as far as Iran, North Korea and Darfur to see how well diplomacy works. Iran is giving the world the finger and pursuing the bomb. North Korea, in light of their leader Kim Jong Il's current problems is firing up its nuclear plants and already has tested a bomb. Darfur is in crisis thousands are dead and millions are displaced. So, on the whole, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced more tangible results than any other diplomatic means recently.

As far as our national image is concerned, if the world is going to call us bad for getting rid of Saddam in the course of looking of the weapons that we haven't found, I say, who cares? The reason they oppose us is basically fiscal in nature, as all things are. The U.N. had the oil for food scandal with Saddam. The French had contracts to build reactors in Iraq and that would hurt them financially. Europeans can talk all they want. It's easy for pacifist nations that are protected by the U.S. through NATO to criticize. They use the money they don't have to spend defending themselves on social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves and they aren't better off for it. We should stop funding a disproportionate amount of money for NATO if the other member counties continue to bite the hand that feeds them. Not all the world hates us, though. One only need to look as far as France to see Nicolas Sarkozy elected as a strong pro-American reformer bent on curbing the welfare state that has left France stagnant.

-Eric

Final Remarks on Economy and Taxes

Well Ian and I decided to go on to a new topic after his last entry on taxes and the economy, but I need to offer just a few stats. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of income taxes while the top 5% pay another 20%. So we have the top 5% of wage earners paying 60% of the federal taxes. The top 10% pay 87% of taxes while the bottom 40% in the country pay ZERO, nothing, nada. And Obama wants to give THEM tax credits which amount to a redistribution of wealth. Yeah, maybe the rich should be better neighbors and pony up some more and be patriotic!
As far as earmarks go, Ian makes the the earmarks of Obama seem good and worthy of taxpayer money. I have no problem with funding for many of the earmarks that are passed. I am upset with the practice of putting a bill in after debate with no name attached. If it deserves federal money then debate it's merits on the floor for a vote like any other bill. And the only reason Hillary and Obama voted against earmarks was because it was politically expedient for them to do so since they were running for President. In practice, they are among the worst culprits.
Finally rich, middle class, and poor go into the military and they can all die serving our country. The military provides great opportunities for advancement in society so maybe those enlisting realize that they can get ahead in life serving in our armed forces.
These articles provide some good information on taxes.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html

href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/">http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/

-Eric

McCain's "earmark" could be your city's sewage treatment plant

In last Friday’s post, I did not respond to Eric’s submission about the candidates’ records on earmark spending due to time and space constraints, so I’ll take care of that now. Eric is absolutely correct that McCain has a fantastic personal record of standing up against earmark spending. This is one of the aspects of the Arizona senator’s career that has reflected his integrity in politics for so long. (Or at least until recently, I would argue.) However, as I said in my last post, it is easy to rail abstractly against “wasteful spending” and “pet projects,” but one person’s pork is another person’s shelter for victims of domestic violence or rural health center clinic. These are two of the things that make up Obama’s earmark requests. By far the largest item on the bill is the $62 million requested to fund the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy Project, which is a new specialized aircraft fitted with a telescope and programmed to fly at 45,000, surpassing the ability of any ground-based aircraft. Oh, and the project is endorsed by, and affiliated with, NASA.

As Eric pointed out, McCain is one of five senators who don’t request earmarks. It is a shame that so many of them do, but to write off all of their requests as simply “wasteful spending” and “pet projects” oversimplifies the problem. The truth is that most Americans don’t pay much attention to how their representatives secure funding for local needs; they just want the research grant/sewage treatment facility/bridge to nowhere. In the meantime, officials should be judged both on the size of their earmark requests and the sort of programs they support. Obama’s earmark record, linked at the bottom of Eric’s previous post, is for the most part devoted to funding research initiatives, infrastructure renovation, and educational programs.

Obama and McCain were one of only 29 senators who voted to end earmark spending, making that issue a thoroughly bipartisan difficulty. If Americans truly want to change that, they’ll have to start voting for whichever candidates—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—who promises to drop the habit. Obama will not be asking for any earmarks in 2009, and this issue looks like one of those—like immigration—which the candidates largely agree upon. McCain undoubtedly will treat earmarks as a higher priority, but this alone won’t even come close to balancing the budget. McCain’s heavy tax cuts for the wealthy and continued commitment to heavy military spending on forces in Iraq will prevent that.

If that isn’t enough, most people may be anti-earmark in principle, but in practice, they’d rather get the new highway than quibble about ways and means. Reform will have to be systemic and total, and will require massive public pressure on politicians. McCain should be lauded for his stance on earmarks, but his overall economic plan remains irresponsible. McCain can just as easily lead the charge against earmarks from the senate in 2009, and spare us the consequences of his reckless plan. While he complains of “tax and spend” Democrats, he’s gearing up for a “don’t tax but still spend” fiscal policy. And that’s a mistake we don’t need to make.