Talk about a question that answers itself. Our leadership saw it as capital to be expended, and their actions indicate a wish to expend all the capital they can while they have the chance.
Maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the utter lack of convincing evidence that Iraq had anything to do with an attack on the US or its allies since Kuwait. Saying 'Ha-ha, you deserved that' is not the same as funding terrorists, no matter what Shrub, Jr. claims.
The thing is, though, take a step back from the anger at Bush's policies. Pretend for a second that you buy into his vision of US foreign policy. Pretend you think it's a good idea for the US to carry out preemptive strikes and so on.
Then ask yourself that question again. How the hell did Bush manage to blow such a golden opportunity? He had the world's sympathy; it was the best possible time to advance his policies without pissing off the rest of the world.
And he still managed to screw it up. Even from a pro-Bush perspective, I don't see how you can call this anything but a stunning botch.
He had the world's sympathy, but he expected that a) it would last forever and b) it would apply to all actions he claimed as 'self-defense'. Even if you start with a pro-Bush perspective, to expect that the rest of the world will be gung-ho supportive of everything because of 9/11 is to assume that the rest of the world is utterly moronic.
Exactly, yeah. Bush seems to have assumed that the world would just fall in line, rather than even attempting to use the goodwill post 9-11. I certainly assume that he /could/ have parlayed that sympathy into more support for US action, if he'd done a half-decent job of it.
And yet they actually seem to think he's doing great. So from their perspective he didn't blow it. Why?
The conclusion I draw is this: to them, pissing off the rest of the world is not irrelevant, it is in fact the goal. The militarist foreign policy position is that the intentions of other nations are of no consequence; it is other nations' /capabilities/ that are the only concern, because this is all we can directly affect through our own military force.
This wasn't possible prior to 9/11 because the American people wouldn't put up with it.
Keep in mind these were the same people who, during Reagan's tenure, made no secret of their desire to eviscerate and ignore the UN as much as possible. They don't believe in multilateralism, nor in the goodwill of other nations -- just nod to it enough to pacify the American voters. Militarist isolationism.
In other words: we will do what we want; if other nations are coincidentally willing to be our allies, that's good because it makes our goals easier; if not, screw them; but in no case will we compromise our goals for the sake of what others want. Adolescence as foreign policy: anyone we cannot control we cannot affect, so don't bother to try. Sympathy will inevitably vanish eventually, so grab the opportunity to expend the sympathy capital immediately. It's a foreign policy triumph for those who think like this, and as far as I can tell, that's who's in charge.
Why piss off the rest of the world? To *prevent the world from trusting us*, making it impossible for Bush's successors to produce non-militaristic international security. They won't trust us ever again because we've shown ourselves capable of electing people like this. Twice, now (Reagan was much the same, but he lacked 9/11 to make the case for permanent militarism to the American people).
I draw a parallel to fiscal policy: huge financial deficits mirroring huge foreign-relations deficits, putting future presidents into a horrible bind and preventing them from changing national direction. The very concept of American-led multilateralism is becoming laughable for the /long term/. It is an attempt to recast the nation far beyond the current conflict or current administration; to wall off America by showing the desires and opinions of the rest of the world to be irrelevant to our actions. The desired state is that we must maintain, forever, a huge military to keep our shores secure, because we will no longer be able to assure our security by diplomatic, non-military means (the militarist viewpoint is that we never could) -- the rest of the world will view us as adolescent promise-breakers, and not trust us again, even after we return adult supervision to the government.
And again, this is a triumph to the people in charge because they never /believed/ in security through non-military means. This solution is believed to be real long-term security because it does not depend on shifting alliances or shifting public opinion. It is, in my opinion (only), the logical conclusion (bordering on ad absurdum) of libertarian thought applied to international relations -- one is responsible only to oneself for one's security, and responsible not at all for the well-being of others; and one's security is only achieved via the barrel of a gun.
Hm. Interesting analysis. I think you're probably bang on target for many individuals within the Bush administration.
There've gotta be some people who just don't get it, and some people who are too worried about losing face to say anything, but that seems like a decent general theory.
Meanwhile, a lot of US citizens are steadfastly not thinking about it because Bush is telling 'em that they'll be safe, and god is that ever what they want to hear right now.
Bush is telling us something a little darker -- he's saying that the /only/ path to safety is through Iraq. The only path to peace is through aggression. Sharon is a man of peace, Bush is a man of peace, that's why we're making war.
I cannot believe that we aren't howling more about Powell using a graduate student's error-filled paper as evidence for war against Iraq -- that we are putting this in front of the /United Nations/. (Robert Scheer called this "the smoking gun" of American policy bankruptcy. I personally think it's Powell doing his absolute best to discredit Rumsfeld, by putting the worst possible face on the presentation he was ordered to give, and essentially falling on his sword.)
I cannot believe we aren't howling more about Bush using words like 'a threat to peace' to describe other people.
I cannot believe we're not pointing more fingers and shouting more loudly at the paper trail showing an Iraq occupation as a long-term plot by Bush's senior advisors, going back to the mid-90s at least. They saw the opportunity and took it.
And then I realize how effectively Bush plays on our fears and insecurities, and I understand.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 01:12 pm (UTC)Talk about a question that answers itself. Our leadership saw it as capital to be expended, and their actions indicate a wish to expend all the capital they can while they have the chance.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 03:13 pm (UTC)The thing is, though, take a step back from the anger at Bush's policies. Pretend for a second that you buy into his vision of US foreign policy. Pretend you think it's a good idea for the US to carry out preemptive strikes and so on.
Then ask yourself that question again. How the hell did Bush manage to blow such a golden opportunity? He had the world's sympathy; it was the best possible time to advance his policies without pissing off the rest of the world.
And he still managed to screw it up. Even from a pro-Bush perspective, I don't see how you can call this anything but a stunning botch.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 04:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 06:45 pm (UTC)The conclusion I draw is this: to them, pissing off the rest of the world is not irrelevant, it is in fact the goal. The militarist foreign policy position is that the intentions of other nations are of no consequence; it is other nations' /capabilities/ that are the only concern, because this is all we can directly affect through our own military force.
This wasn't possible prior to 9/11 because the American people wouldn't put up with it.
Keep in mind these were the same people who, during Reagan's tenure, made no secret of their desire to eviscerate and ignore the UN as much as possible. They don't believe in multilateralism, nor in the goodwill of other nations -- just nod to it enough to pacify the American voters. Militarist isolationism.
In other words: we will do what we want; if other nations are coincidentally willing to be our allies, that's good because it makes our goals easier; if not, screw them; but in no case will we compromise our goals for the sake of what others want. Adolescence as foreign policy: anyone we cannot control we cannot affect, so don't bother to try. Sympathy will inevitably vanish eventually, so grab the opportunity to expend the sympathy capital immediately. It's a foreign policy triumph for those who think like this, and as far as I can tell, that's who's in charge.
Why piss off the rest of the world? To *prevent the world from trusting us*, making it impossible for Bush's successors to produce non-militaristic international security. They won't trust us ever again because we've shown ourselves capable of electing people like this. Twice, now (Reagan was much the same, but he lacked 9/11 to make the case for permanent militarism to the American people).
I draw a parallel to fiscal policy: huge financial deficits mirroring huge foreign-relations deficits, putting future presidents into a horrible bind and preventing them from changing national direction. The very concept of American-led multilateralism is becoming laughable for the /long term/. It is an attempt to recast the nation far beyond the current conflict or current administration; to wall off America by showing the desires and opinions of the rest of the world to be irrelevant to our actions. The desired state is that we must maintain, forever, a huge military to keep our shores secure, because we will no longer be able to assure our security by diplomatic, non-military means (the militarist viewpoint is that we never could) -- the rest of the world will view us as adolescent promise-breakers, and not trust us again, even after we return adult supervision to the government.
And again, this is a triumph to the people in charge because they never /believed/ in security through non-military means. This solution is believed to be real long-term security because it does not depend on shifting alliances or shifting public opinion. It is, in my opinion (only), the logical conclusion (bordering on ad absurdum) of libertarian thought applied to international relations -- one is responsible only to oneself for one's security, and responsible not at all for the well-being of others; and one's security is only achieved via the barrel of a gun.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-17 07:24 pm (UTC)There've gotta be some people who just don't get it, and some people who are too worried about losing face to say anything, but that seems like a decent general theory.
Meanwhile, a lot of US citizens are steadfastly not thinking about it because Bush is telling 'em that they'll be safe, and god is that ever what they want to hear right now.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-18 12:01 pm (UTC)I cannot believe that we aren't howling more about Powell using a graduate student's error-filled paper as evidence for war against Iraq -- that we are putting this in front of the /United Nations/. (Robert Scheer called this "the smoking gun" of American policy bankruptcy. I personally think it's Powell doing his absolute best to discredit Rumsfeld, by putting the worst possible face on the presentation he was ordered to give, and essentially falling on his sword.)
I cannot believe we aren't howling more about Bush using words like 'a threat to peace' to describe other people.
I cannot believe we're not pointing more fingers and shouting more loudly at the paper trail showing an Iraq occupation as a long-term plot by Bush's senior advisors, going back to the mid-90s at least. They saw the opportunity and took it.
And then I realize how effectively Bush plays on our fears and insecurities, and I understand.