http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9720
September 20, 2006
What's Wrong With American Foreign Policy? In a word: Bush
by Justin Raimondo
What's wrong with American foreign policy is actually a lot more
complicated than the subhead of this piece would have it, but I just
couldn't resist the temptation: besides which, our president is a major
cause - albeit not the only cause - of the dysfunction that
afflicts us. A grand example of this is his recent speech to the United
Nations General Assembly, in which he trotted out every neocon fantasy
- and then some - in his effort to promote what he termed, on
another occasion, his "global democratic revolution."
The remnants of the president's conservative fan club over at National
Review, in the person of one Mario Loyola, hail Bush's oration as a
triumph of "public diplomacy," but this kind of diplomacy is straight
out of Bizarro World: it is designed, seemingly, to alienate the
world's peoples, instead of drawing to them our banner and cause.
Off-putting right from the beginning, the president immediately
launched into a reiteration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks - as if the
rest of the world hadn't suffered equally, and then some, in the
interim. How many have died in Iraq? They've suffered the equivalent of
at least a dozen 9/11s, and probably far more. As if to add insult to
injury, the president just had to drag in Lebanon:
"Since then, the enemies of humanity have continued their campaign of
murder. Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its extremist ideology have
attacked more than two dozen nations. And recently a different group of
extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the
start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a
great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a
weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace."
Al-Qaeda may indeed have attacked more than two dozen nations, as the
president avers, but these attacks pale, in terms of ferocity and
casualties, in comparison to those launched by the U.S. We invaded a
country - Iraq - that had never attacked us and represented no
credible military threat either to us or to our allies. We also invaded
Afghanistan, and that's another war we are losing - in part because,
as even President Karzai, our ally, points out, we keep brutalizing
those we have supposedly come to "liberate."
As for the president's remarks on Lebanon, he doesn't say who or what
made the Lebanese conflict so "terrible," but the merciless cruelty of
an Israeli assault that left thousands of unexploded cluster bombs in
its wake was condemned by nearly every nation on earth - except,
naturally, for the United States of America. That he dares even mention
the word "extremism," while simultaneously sanctioning the virtual
destruction of the Middle East's only Arab democracy on account of the
kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers, is another Bizarro World antic
from the clown in chief.
Odder still is the president's conception of the "great ideological
struggle" supposedly taking place between advocates of 9th century
medievalism hiding in caves and the most powerful, the richest, and
arguably still the freest country on earth, one with a combined
"defense" budget that equals the budgets of the world's top 10 spenders
on military items. Yes, it's true, the psychopathic cult of al-Qaeda
and its allies "use terror as a weapon to create fear" - but so, in
at least one important sense, does the Bush administration. This, after
all, is the same administration that conjured visions of an Iraqi
nuclear attack if we didn't invade and occupy that country with
dispatch: "we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The same people bullied
Congress into passing the "PATRIOT" Act unread, and now maintain that
unless we torture people halfway to death we'll live in the shadow of
terror forever. If this isn't using terror as a weapon to create fear,
then one wonders what would qualify.
The real howler, however, is the president's description of the other
side of the ideological divide in this grand world-historical struggle:
the "moderate people who work for peace." That's him and his friends in
the War Party, in case you missed it. You know: those famous
"moderates" in the White House and the upper civilian reaches of the
Pentagon who want to effect a radical transformation of the Middle
East, exporting "democracy" - at gunpoint - to a region that has no
liberal tradition. Moderation is precisely what the makers of our
foreign policy lack, and this is especially true, it seems, when it
comes to the president, who, as I have said before, is more neoconish
than the most radical neocons. Here, after all, is a man who once
proclaimed
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth
of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture,
with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
If that is "moderate," then I'm Richard Perle.
This self-designation of Bush and his fellow global revolutionaries as
exemplars of moderation is a new tack, and the president tries it on
for size with limited success:
"Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the
military remained neutral. The United Arab Emirates recently announced
that half of the seats in its Federal National Council will be chosen
by elections. Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote
and run for office for the first time. Citizens have voted in municipal
elections in Saudi Arabia, in parliamentary elections in Jordan and
Bahrain, and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt."
Let's take at least some of these presidential talking points
one-by-one:
Algeria - Although widely touted in advance as a sterling example of
the "democratization" trend supposedly inspired by Bush and his fellow
ideologues, the sweeping "victory" by President Abdelaziz Bouteflika,
longtime strongman and virtual dictator of the country, was viewed by
many with deep suspicion, and the opposition immediately charged fraud.
Pre-election polls showed El Presidente coming in around fourth place,
so his stunning 85 percent vote total came as quite a surprise -
although not to those hopeless cynics (er, realists), such as myself,
who don't plan on seeing a Jeffersonian republic arise in the desert
sands of North Africa anytime soon.
UAE - The United Arab Emirates is a federation of absolute
monarchies, presided over by the emir in chief. The Federal National
Council, which will now - yippee! - have half its members elected,
instead of appointed by royal decree, is a purely consultative body.
All power is safely ensconced in the hands of the emirs, chiefly the
emir of Dubai.
Kuwait - So Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to
vote. Welcome to the 20th century, folks - but, hey, didn't the same
thing occur in occupied Palestine, without much controversy? In
Palestine, 139 women ran for office, with 52 getting elected to the
lower branch of the legislature and two elevated to the higher chamber.
Bush didn't mention this great advance for democracy, perhaps because
Hamas came out the clear winner. And, yes, you could say that the
victory of Hamas in Palestine was inspired by American actions in Iraq
and elsewhere - albeit not in the way Bush means us to understand.
Which brings me to the utter disconnect between what Bush says and what
his actions accomplish in the real world. He claims to champion the
forces of "moderation," while launching a "global revolution" that
rivals the dreams of Alexander, Napoleon, and Lenin all rolled into
one. He claims to be fighting terrorism, even as his foreign policy -
indeed, his every pronouncement on the subject - does more to recruit
for the terrorist cause than all the propaganda put out by al-Qaeda
since its founding. Without the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of
Afghanistan, the blind support for Israel's rape of Lebanon, and the
posturing, threats, and swaggering declarations of unremitting
hostility aimed at Iran and Syria, al-Qaeda would be a small worldwide
network of sociopathic ideologues, isolated from and largely hated by
their Muslim brethren. Instead, bin Laden is a hero to millions of
misguided people, due largely to George W. Bush's foreign policy of
unrelenting aggression.
I won't go into the presidential hectoring of the various peoples of
the region, mostly rhetorical boilerplate of the sort we've come to
expect from White House speechwriters, except for this:
"To the people of Lebanon: Last year, you inspired the world when you
came out into the streets to demand your independence from Syrian
dominance. You drove Syrian forces from your country and you
reestablished democracy. Since then, you have been tested by the
fighting that began with Hezbollah's unprovoked attacks on Israel. Many
of you have seen your homes and communities caught in crossfire. We see
your suffering, and the world is helping you to rebuild your country,
and helping you deal with the armed extremists who are undermining your
democracy by acting as a state within a state. The United Nations has
passed a good resolution that has authorized an international force,
led by France and Italy, to help you restore Lebanese sovereignty over
Lebanese soil. For many years, Lebanon was a model of democracy and
pluralism and openness in the region - and it will be again."
Yes, some of the Lebanese people - with some very numerous exceptions
- insisted Syrian troops exit, leaving the door wide open for the
Israelis to re-invade, as they did about a year and a half later.
Bush's blithering about Hezbollah's "unprovoked attack" must have had
quite an impact on the Lebanese delegation, which was no doubt
wondering about all those unprovoked Israeli attacks on civilian
targets in Lebanon, including fuel tanks, electrical and water
facilities, and residential areas (including Christian towns and
villages). They weren't "caught in crossfire," but were deliberately
targeted by the Israelis, who sought to make their point to all the
peoples of the region by means of terror. And as for that "state within
a state" the president denounces - it is Hezbollah, and not the UN or
the U.S., that is rebuilding the ruined cities and villages of Lebanon.
Finally, if the president is so eager to champion "Lebanese sovereignty
over Lebanese soil," then why did he give the green light to Israeli
aggression - and even rush military aid to the aggressors? If Lebanon
becomes, once again, a model of democracy and pluralism in the region,
it will be no thanks to this president and his foreign policy.
There is a distinctly Soviet - i.e., unconsciously comic, albeit
sinister - tone to this presidential peroration. It has all the charm
and grace of a Stalinist ode to the collective farm's new tractor, and
the same respect for facts. Let the president warble on all he likes
about the "progress" toward "democracy" being made in, say, Egypt -
but anyone who follows these things knows perfectly well that the
"elections" held there were a farce. The main rival to President Hosni
Mubarak was jailed, and his followers beaten in the streets. Some
"democracy"!
In this same spirit, Bush regales us with tales of the great "progress"
being made in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as those two countries are
ripped apart by rising anti-American insurgencies. It is, frankly,
embarrassing to have to listen to an American president utter such
nonsense aloud on the world stage, all the while preening and lecturing
the assembled delegates as if he were some sort of Universal Hegemon,
the Emperor of the Earth. If you're an American, the overweening
arrogance of Bush's act is breathtakingly painful to watch. One dares
not imagine how the rest of the world takes it.
.
|
