Balkinization  

Monday, March 13, 2006

George W. Bush: not exactly the right spokesman against isolationism

JB

President Bush is correctly warning Americans against a growing tendency toward isolationism. The problem is that in the past five years he has done everything he could to stoke the same irrational fears that he now condemns. Together with Karl Rove, he cynically used 9-11 to scare Americans about threats from abroad. He disdained international law and international bodies. He generated disdain for traditional European allies ("Old Europe") even as he sought to form his own pick up team of dependent nations to fight the war against Iraq. He succeeded in getting most of the world to despise Americans, a hatred that only grew following the invasion of Iraq and reports of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay. After all, the best way to stoke isolationism is to get Americans to hate and fear other countries, and other countries to hate and fear the United States. The latter hated merely increases the former in a vicious circle: Nobody wants to get involved with people who hate them.

After alienating former allies, and, indeed, most of the rest of the world, Bush then pushed the country into what in hindsight appears to have been a thoroughly unnecessary war against Iraq based on hyped intelligence reports. He then trumpeted American power in his "Mission Accomplished" pageant only to be hit with an insurgency that he didn't expect, leading to a long and drawn-out war that has cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars wasted with no end in sight.

His colossal incompetence in planning the Iraqi occupation only exacerbated the suspicion that American interventions in other people's affairs aren't worth it. He then ran for reelection in 2004 based on a platform of fear-- the idea that the world outside America's borders was dangerous and only he could protect us. Again, this is not a good prescription for making Americans feel warmly toward the rest of the world or, more importantly, seek to engage with it. And after he was reelected, the attacks in Iraq continued, bringing that country dangerously close to all out civil war. Note to the President: if you want Americans to embrace internationalism, don't make promises you can't keep and above all, don't lose wars that you started.

Bush's ill considered doctrine of military preemption, his repeated fearmongering, his cynical use of 9-11, his deliberate generation of Americans' resentment toward traditional allies, his incompetent handling of the Iraqi war, his hubris following initial successes, his failure to recognize and address the problems of occupation in time, and (most recently) his cluelessness on how Americans would react to the Dubai port proposal make his current admonitions against isolationism necessary but also laughable, given the source. No one is more responsible for the current American hostility toward the rest of the world (and the rest of the world's hostility toward America) than George W. Bush. The best thing he could do now to prevent isolationism is to admit his mistakes, resign from the Presidency, and take Mr. Cheney with him.


Comments:

Wouldn't your plan be a little unfair to the voters? I realize that you have a lot of contempt for them, but they are people just like you and me (though with lower SAT scores), and they are entitled to have the president of their choice until 2009.
 

I spent 8 years wondering why Clinton was still President, when the guy was such an obvious criminal that he actually had to fire federal prosecutors when he took office in order to save himself from prosecution. (The fact that he fired ALL of them, and only rehired the ones who weren't on his trail, didn't disguise what he'd done THAT much!)

Get used to it, in other words, the situation isn't exactly unprecidented.
 

I have never thought of this Administration as isolationist. Certainly not when it comes to commerce. Nor have we withdrawn out of any military alliances. In fact, we have built more. It is less than deferential to the General Assembly but I think it is properly engaged in the Security Council. It is all relative, I suppose. The Buchananites think that we are not isolationist enough.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home