View From a Height

The Bush Doctrine Abroad

My friend Peter Baker has written a suitably pessimistic article about President Bush's inauguration address, and the Bush doctrine in general, and their foreign reception. Peter's not normally a snarky guy, (although he has hankered for the MSM ever since at least the 4th Grade). But his piece today does pretty much everything to frame the Bush Doctrine as an inevitable failure right out of the box. There's a lot to pick from, but I'll work on the choicest pieces, and let you do the rest.

We can start with the description of the Bush doctrine's innovative style:

The inspiration for Bush's thinking lately has been Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet political prisoner turned conservative Israeli politician. Bush read Sharansky's book " target="_blank">The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror and invited him to the White House in November to talk about its ideas. Since then, Bush has been recommending the book to nearly everyone he sees, from friends to journalists to foreign leaders, telling CNN last week that "this is a book that . . . summarizes how I feel."

...

The book takes on conservative "realists" who focus on preserving stability and national interests rather than advancing noble causes such as democracy...

Well, yes, except that the conservative "realists" now tend to be holdovers from the Bush I administration, while the ones that show up on the talk shows are all from the Clinton years.

Putin logically would be Bush's first test of his inaugural pledge to confront "every ruler" about domestic oppression and predicate relations on "the decent treatment of their own people." ...

Putin usually bristles at even mild U.S. criticism, and others around the world seem no more eager to listen to a proselytizing president.

As good a job as Peter does of explaining the origins and underpinnings of the Bush doctrine, he seems to have a somewhat tenuous grasp of its underlying realism. We may oppose tyranny wherever, but that doesn't keep up from fighting today's battle today, while setting up the pins for tomorrow. We're not at war with Russia, we're at war with Islamo-fascists.

Richard Holwill, a former Reagan administration diplomat, said Rice would make a difference at State because of her close relationship with Bush. "They're going to greatly improve the administration's foreign policy machinery," he said.

But he added that the administration needs to rethink its approach to fighting terrorists. "Bush presents everything in very black-and-white moralistic terms," Holwill said, "and I truly hope that we get a more sophisticated approach to the war against the Salafists," or Islamic radicals, "because they are gaining ground on the Arab street."

I don't want to be too hard on Mr. Holwill, but this sort of people, people who would quite literally take Mr. Holwill's head off before negotiating with him, don't define black-and-white morality, then the diplomatic machinery really does need some new blueprints. After all, blunt talk does preclude things like mixed signals from trade representatives.

And a nice touch, there in, "Salafists." I'm sure this is a term that resonates deeply with Islamic scholars and some academics, but it doesn't mean much to the man on the street. Naming something gives you a certain power over it, but only if that name conveys something of its essence. "Salafists" sounds more like sandwich-makers than bomb-throwers.

..."We need to work on a public diplomacy effort that explains our motives and explains our intentions," [Bush] said.

"That line," said Talbott, "particularly stood out as the interview was read on Embassy Row. The Europeans would like to see more than better explanations of American positions. They would like to see actual dialogue. . . . They want some give and take."

That last bit is such a good straight line, it's hard to know which direction to go with it. Of course by now, everyone's well aware of Europe's having squandered 500 years of military tradition on 50 years of dependency, so it's pretty obvious which direction the giving and taking is going to go in that case.

The Talbott quoted, by the way, is Strobe Talbott, who was responsible for that smashingly successful approach to Russia during the Clinton Administration. You know, the one that left all the goodies that weren't disintegrating into iron oxide filings in the hands of a few families, leaving the opening for Mr. Democracy, Tsar Vladimir I to step into power.

Peter opens and closes with a description of the President's post-election trip up North.

To avoid any unpleasantries, Martin sacked a shrill critic of Bush from his governing party, and Bush aides steered the president away from speaking to Parliament, where he might have been heckled. Canadian officials said their U.S. counterparts assured them that Bush would not put Martin on the spot on his refusal to join the U.S. missile defense system.

But Bush did confront Martin and used the sort of language that sets Canadians on edge. "He leaned across the table and said, 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, 'Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " said the senior Canadian official who was in the room and noted that he had been assured by Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell personally that Bush would avoid the subject.

"Most of our side was trying to explain the politics, how it was difficult to do," the official said. But Bush "waved his hands and said, 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defense of Canada it wouldn't be accepted?' "

Well, if nothing else, this ought to put to bed the idea that Powell and Rice were in the room to handle the marionette-strings. More than that, the President was challenging Mr. Martin to be a leader. That may be a bit much to ask of a premier leading a coalition government with a coalition dedicated to keeping the country defenseless. Still, there's something to be said for marginalizing irresponsibility, and if Mr. Martin is forced out in the next year or so, he could have left behind a party committed to a bipartisan foreign policy.

In any case, it's a bit rich for the Canadians to be complaining here of double-crossing when they were avoiding publicly humiliating the man responsible for their defense. After all, Mr. Bush voiced his objections in private, and it's the oh-so-discreet diplomats in the room who made them public. For some reason, Peter wants to make this the President's fault.