Why did Bush say, "We're not into nation building"?

[sqweels]

It may have been Rumsfeld and/or Cheney who actually articulated this sentiment, but it seems to fly in the face of the central theme of Bush's foreign policy and the neocon agenda of spreading democracy around the world.

So what excactly were they thinking?

[don't ask]

Maybe he was factoring in the nation destroying?

[ElvisL1ves]

That if Clinton did it, it must be bad. You know, the driving spirit behind Bush's decisionmaking in most matters.

There is still a strong strain of thought in hard-right circles that we had no business going into Yugoslavia and ending the genocide there. The strong reaction to Clinton's doing it anyway let Bush use it as a campaign item, confirming to the isolationists that he was on their side.

[Ravenman]

So what excactly were they thinking?Reality just got in the way of their ideology. It's just that simple.

[BrainGlutton]

When did Bush (or Cheney or Rumsfeld) say that?

[Der Trihs]

When did Bush (or Cheney or Rumsfeld) say that?When campaigning IIRC.

[bup]

Bush said, "we're not in the business of nation building." As close as I can remember. It was in regard to Afghanistan, and he said it right after the invasion.

Here's a ref to it:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/29/cst.01.html

He was trying to make the point that we shouldn't worry about his military project becoming a morass (like Vietnam), because he was going to have a clear military objective, limit the scope, and not get entrenched.

Obviously, he was idiotic, and, reflective of many of his administration's strategies, the policy was announced before it had been thought through. He was eating his words within a month.

[BrainGlutton]

When campaigning IIRC.

In 2000, or 2004?

[BrainGlutton]

It may have been Rumsfeld and/or Cheney who actually articulated this sentiment, but it seems to fly in the face of the central theme of Bush's foreign policy and the neocon agenda of spreading democracy around the world.

The neocon assumption seems to be, "nation-building" is unnecessary; when you knock out the evil bad naughty dictator, democracy just happens.

[Der Trihs]

In 2000, or 2004?2000 IIRC; my memory's vague on that however.

[John Mace]

It was in one of the debates (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html) with Gore in 2000. He didn't exaclty say "we're not into nation building", but something close (empahasis added):

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

[bup]

John, he'd said many similar things during the campaign, but he said it pretty much word for word talking about invading Afghanistan. Looking for the exact quote still.

[bup]

Here:
When the United States began bombing Afghanistan, many here and abroad asked, “What happens after the war?” “We’re not into nation building,” Bush told reporters within days after bombing began. "We’re into justice." (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/spring2002/features/nation_building.html)

[John Mace]

OK. I didn't remember seeing that and assumed we were talking about the debate. I think Bush is right-- we're not into nation building. Witness the mess that Iraq is right now. Afghanistan might be a little better, but it's got a long ways to go.

[kanicbird]

Well if he said it in 2000, that is before 9-11-01. And I would still agree with his statment, we are not into nation building, we are in the war against Islamic fundementalism, the act of removing from power and bringing to trail Sadam Husain and creating a democracy in the M.E. is just a side effect.

[BobLibDem]

we are not into nation building, we are in the war against Islamic fundementalism
Funny, that. Islamic fundamentalists were never a threat to control Iraq until the US came in.

act of removing from power and bringing to trail Sadam Husain
Is this trial worth the cost?

creating a democracy in the M.E. is just a side effect.
A side effect yet to happen, if ever.

I can't quote an exact date, but I seem to recall Bush stating repeatedly that he was not into nation building.

[tomndebb]

we are in the war against Islamic fundementalism, the act of removing from power and bringing to trail Sadam Husain and creating a democracy in the M.E. is just a side effect.That is not a side effect, it is a side track. Hussein had nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism, so an attack on Iraq was a (costly) distraction from the main war.

[Malodorous]

we are in the war against Islamic fundementalism

Yea, Saddam was a bad person, but he was far worse to the followers Islamic fundementalists then the US will ever be. If our real intentions in Iraq were to hurt the fundementalists, we should've just sent Saddam a billion dollars worth of weapons and he probably would've finished them off in his own country and then tried to take out the Mullahs in Iran. I don't think even Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war by saying it was part of a war against Islamic fundementalism.

Bush put forward his opposition to nation building as one of the key differences between his and Gore's stances on National Security back in 2000. IIRC, one of the Republican arguments was that Clinton had "worn down" the US army by fighting non-essential wars in Yugoslavia. Bush also was still tied to his fathers legacy, under whose administration the Powell Doctorine had been formed to justify not persuing the destruction of the Iraqi regime after the first Gulf War.

Honestly its strange that Bush seemed to precieve the dangers of open ended occupations in 2000, yet was still caught so flat footed when Iraq slid from bad to worse.

[John Mace]

That is not a side effect, it is a side track. Hussein had nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism, so an attack on Iraq was a (costly) distraction from the main war.
To be fair, he listed removing SH form power as a separate item from fighting against Islamic fundamentalism. But I agree that any attempt to link the two is absurd.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

The quote people are thinking of is probably the one mocked to such good effect in this Daily Show clip: Bush vs. Bush (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=12814). John Stewart "moderates" a debate between President Bush and Governor Bush about whether we should be engaged in nation-building in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Daily Show doesn't indicate where the various quotes come from, but at time index 2:36 of the clip, we hear the following. It looks like it comes from one of the 2000 debates.


JOHN STEWART: Mister President, is the idea to just build a new country that we like better?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We will tear down the apparatus of terror, and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

GOVERNOR BUSH: I don't think our troops oughta be used for what's called "nation building".

[John Mace]

To be fair, he listed removing SH form power as a separate item from fighting against Islamic fundamentalism. But I agree that any attempt to link the two is absurd.
My bad. Re-reading that post I can see that he was linking the two. I misunderstood the "side effect" part.

[Apos]

Just another example along the same lines of the principle that having conservatives who despise government itself probably won't be very good at actually running it.

People who scoff at nation-building will probably suck at it if hey end up trying to do it. Why would you have put much thought into something you think is dumb? Iraq was basically an exercise in tossing aside or ignoring every major lesson about nation building and democratization we'd learned over the years and basically making it up from scratch. This sort of "I don't need to know anything: I'm in charge!" attitude has affected other things as well: for instance the whole court system that the SC just said boo too. As many JAG's pointed out, the guy who came up with the policy (Addington?) seemed completely ignorant of many of the actual laws and protocols governing military justice. But he wouldn't listen to anyone who tried to point this out, and indeed mostly developed the entire process in secret, surprising even people like Colin Powell when he came out with it.

[black rabbit]

Well if he said it in 2000, that is before 9-11-01. And I would still agree with his statment, we are not into nation building, we are in the war against Islamic fundementalism, the act of removing from power and bringing to trail Sadam Husain and creating a democracy in the M.E. is just a side effect.

Please explain what Iraq had to do with Islamic fundamentalism.

[kanicbird]

Islamic fundamentalists were never a threat to control Iraq until the US came in.

Funny wording, I take this to mean that I.F. was not about to seize power in Iraq, but now they can due to the US taking out S.H. Which really says nothing very poorly. I.F. opperated in Iraq underground under S.H. and S.H. either couldn't do anythign about it or didn't want to. Don't you remember Al-Zarqawi, what has it been 2 weeks since we killed him? Guess where is was - in Iraq; guess what he was a I.F. terrorists leader.

Is this trial worth the cost?

Good question, and a fair one. Well we can look it in terms of total lives, would more people be dead if we didn't invade, killed under Sadam H., or via the war. We could look at the hit to I. F. terrorism we made by killing Al-Zarqawi.

On this morning’s "Early Show" CBS terrorism analyst and former FBI agent Christopher Whitcomb told co-host Hannah Storm that he believes the seized al Qaeda documents are believable, i.e. the ones where al Qaeda admits it’s losing in Iraq, and that the United States is making significant progress in the overall war on terrorism.

From
http://newsbusters.org/node/5937

The memo says the insurgency is being hurt by the increasing capabilities of Iraqi security forces, a shortage of weapons and fighters, a lack of funds and internal divisions....

...The document says to reverse this trend, insurgents must:

• Use the media to improve their image.

• Infiltrate Iraq's security forces.

• Reorganize recruiting efforts.

• Lessen internal dissent and bolster respect for the insurgency's leadership.




From
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-raid-blueprint_x.htm

A side effect yet to happen, if ever.

I guess you missed the news about the iraqi elections, actually there were 2 IIRC, perhaps purple fingers will refresh your memory.

Hussein had nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism, so an attack on Iraq was a (costly) distraction from the main war.

This is a pretty old talking point and can no longer stand, the Al-Zarqawi documents have foudn that I.F. Terrorism was/is in Iraq and I.F. Terrorism is loosing.
e should've just sent Saddam a billion dollars worth of weapons and he probably would've finished them off in his own country and then tried to take out the Mullahs in Iran.

We did this already, S.H. used that to get chemical waepons and use them. So it didn't work, why do you want to repeat this?

Re-reading that post I can see that he was linking the two.

Darn right I was linking the 2!

Please explain what Iraq had to do with Islamic fundamentalism.

In short by allowing it to operate underground, instead of stomping it out.

[ElvisL1ves]

There's a few things you seem to be unaware of, kanicbird. Good reading material (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/340fcefr.asp):

1. Zarqawi wasn't "Al Qaeda" until after the US invasion. He changed the name of his outfit then as a recruiting gesture.

2. Before the invasion, his camp was in the northern no-fly zone - an area controlled militarily not by Saddam but by us. Us.

3. Bush, or perhaps it was just Cheney or Rumsfeld, cancelled plans to get Zarqawi in an airstrike during the runup to war, right at the time his presence was being extolled by them as proof of Saddam's sponsorship of terrorism.

4. The insurgency has now blossomed to such an extent that he didn't matter much anymore anyway.

[Malodorous]

should've just sent Saddam a billion dollars worth of weapons and he probably would've finished them off in his own country and then tried to take out the Mullahs in Iran.We did this already, S.H. used that to get chemical waepons and use them. So it didn't work, why do you want to repeat this?

Didn't work? Iraq fought the largest and most powerful Islamic fundamentalist state in a brutal eight year war. As far as hurting the cause of Islamic revolution, it work splendidly.

Of course my suggestion was facicious, there was then and would certainly be now a large bad side in bankrolling another Saddam led Persian War (further WMD development included). But my point was that far from being in cahoots with Islamic fundementalist, Saddam hated them, both in his own country and in his neighbors. Indeed, while a bastard and certainly deserving of being toppled, I'd argue that Saddam was the leading opponent of the Islamic Revolution during his time. Attacking him to strike a blow against Islamic Fundementalism is like attacking Stalin in '42 to stop Nazism.

[kanicbird]

Thanks for the linky ElvisL1ves, but forgive me if I take The Weekly Standard with a great big fat grain of salt, but even so from your linky:

. In 2002, the Pentagon had formulated a plan to attack Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq (where he had relocated after leaving Afghanistan) using cruise missiles and airstrikes

Sounds like Clinton's plan to get Bin Ladan, Which failed miserably and to this day is a symbol of US incompetence and unwillingness to commit troops.

[John Mace]

Sounds like Clinton's plan to get Bin Ladan, Which failed miserably and to this day is a symbol of US incompetence and unwillingness to commit troops.
That had nothing to do with committing troops.

All references to Clinton aside, you can't seriously be still equating the invasion of Iraq with fighting Islamic terrorism. Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn't our policy.

[kanicbird]

Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn't our policy.

See: Bush Doctrine

Short answer: Yes we do

[Dumbguy]

Sounds like Clinton's plan to get Bin Ladan, Which failed miserably and to this day is a symbol of US incompetence and unwillingness to commit troops.Is Bush's failure to get Bin Laden also a symbol of incompetence? Or a declaration of resolve?

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn't our policy.

See: Bush Doctrine

Short answer: Yes we do

I don't think much of the Bush doctrine, but that is a pretty slanderous summary of it, kanicbird. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine):

The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War.

It's not about sacrificing 32,600 innocents to get one guy. Zarqawi could have only dreamed of killing so many people. It would have been the height of moral stupidity for us to do the same just to stop him.

[kanicbird]

Is Bush's failure to get Bin Laden also a symbol of incompetence? Or a declaration of resolve?

Failure? When did we stop looking for Bin Laden? AFAIK he is still being hunted down hike the dog he is, hiding in a cave somewhere, totally ineffective as a terrorists leader in the mean time.

It's not about sacrificing 32,600 innocents to get one guy

That was my short answer, and getting the 'big guy' Al Zarqawi not only means we get him, but we have retrieved information on terrorists contacts, tactics and that document that clearly shows that the I.F. terrorists know they are losing and their only hope is to manipulate the media to present a image that we are losing (basically), which is it apparent that some of you accept.

[BrainGlutton]

It was in one of the debates (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html) with Gore in 2000. He didn't exaclty say "we're not into nation building", but something close (empahasis added):

. . . I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.

Bush was actually right about that. An army is no good for nation-building. At best, it can only keep things quiet and orderly while the nation-building goes on. (Or else, it can't.) But that doesn't mean you can neglect the project if you want a stable nation to result. Maybe Bush should've beefed up the budget of the Peace Corp. At any rate they would've done a better job of it than Halliburton, etc.

[BrainGlutton]

Funny wording, I take this to mean that I.F. was not about to seize power in Iraq, but now they can due to the US taking out S.H. Which really says nothing very poorly. I.F. opperated in Iraq underground under S.H. and S.H. either couldn't do anythign about it or didn't want to. Don't you remember Al-Zarqawi, what has it been 2 weeks since we killed him? Guess where is was - in Iraq; guess what he was a I.F. terrorists leader.

That was after the invasion. Before the invasion, al-Zarqawi was operating in Iraqi Kurdistan (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/alterman) -- outside Hussein's control, and as opposed to his regime as to Israel or the U.S. Knocking out Hussein only enabled al-Zarqawi -- enabled him to operate throughout Iraq.

[BrainGlutton]

I guess you missed the news about the iraqi elections, actually there were 2 IIRC, perhaps purple fingers will refresh your memory.

Election != democracy. Iraq does not yet have a democratically elected government -- it is elected but it is not a government, because it can't govern. What Iraq has right now is what political scientists call a "failed state." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state) (We went over all this quite recently in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377685&highlight=failed+state) thread.)

This is a pretty old talking point and can no longer stand, the Al-Zarqawi documents have foudn that I.F. Terrorism was/is in Iraq and I.F. Terrorism is loosing.

I assume you meant to write "loosing" in that sentence because you cannot possibly have meant "losing."


We did this already, S.H. used that to get chemical waepons and use them. So it didn't work, why do you want to repeat this?

Errmm . . . because it was good enough for Reagan? :)

In short by allowing it to operate underground, instead of stomping it out.

:rolleyes: The only reason al-Zarqawi was able to operate in Kurdistan was because we made it impossible, after GW1, for Hussein to govern Kurdistan.

[BrainGlutton]

Failure? When did we stop looking for Bin Laden? AFAIK he is still being hunted down hike the dog he is . . .

Indeed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html)

[crowmanyclouds]

Failure? When did we stop looking for Bin Laden?...Stop looking for him, or stop looking for him like we really want to find him?
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html)
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: July 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."...CMC fnord!

[BrainGlutton]

See: Bush Doctrine

Indeed: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine)

The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

Christ and Allah, haven't we learned the folly of that kind of thinking yet?!

It appears you haven't . . .

[bup]

Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn't our policy.Wow, that's a worse ratio than when al Qaeda attacked us! For 3,000 innocent civilians' lives, 19 terrorists ended up dead.

We can only hope the next al Qaeda doctrine steps up the 'cut of my nose spite' even higher than this Bush doctrine has.