Bush's new Israel policy / finally I think I "get it" (Bush overall foreign)

Great Debates
1

Finally I see a coherent pattern, something aside from “Damn, he’s dumb and inept!”, a real intention and execution of plan, going on with the Bush administration’s foreign policy since 9/11.

I’m not going to post cites and references, believing that the evidence is laid out in facts we’re all pretty much aware of at this point. If you disagree with me, it’s most likely to be on the “conclusions drawn” level (and I’m not sure I even “agree with myself”, but hoo boy do the pieces sort of fit the pattern now, or what?) –

The administration is actively trying to recreate a polarized, global “us versus them” world such as comprised the Cold War, and “them” is the Islamic world. I don’t know if it’s inspired by a belief that the politics they espouse flourish best in a polarized “us versus them” world, or inspired by a Christian fundamentalist antipathy towards Islam, or (most likely, IMHO) a convenient fusion of the two, but…

Convince me I’m just having bad visions. Dispell this awful notion with some reminders of things the administration has done to court an alliance with some Islamic states, or ways in which it has stepped carefully to avoid giving the Islamic world the impression that we’re against them all.

I’d really rather think they are just stupid, incompetent, and short-sighted.

2

Nah, I’d go with the stupid, incompetent and short-sighted.

They wanted the us v them, and went out of their way to create it, but it’s gotten completely out of hand. Far beyond what they planned for. Complete idiots.

3

Look, I have to object this lame mischaracterization of the Bush administration. You’re really selling them short. There’s absolutely no reason “stupid, incompetent and short-sighted” can’t go hand-in-hand with “venal, polarizing and mendacious”.

4

AH3: *The administration is actively trying to recreate a polarized, global “us versus them” world such as comprised the Cold War, and “them” is the Islamic world. […]
Convince me I’m just having bad visions. Dispell this awful notion with some reminders of things the administration has done to court an alliance with some Islamic states, or ways in which it has stepped carefully to avoid giving the Islamic world the impression that we’re against them all. *

I don’t know if I can convince you, but I think you’re wrong. Consider, for example, the frequent explicit distinctions in Bush’s speeches between Islamist terrorists and Muslims in general (one of the few things that I think he’s been doing right). Consider his Administration’s close ties to, e.g., the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Aside from that dumb-as-a-rock “crusade” reference soon after 9/11, I really don’t think you can point to any indication that he truly wants to pit the West in general against the Muslim world in general.

Does that mean he’s been successful in winning the approval of non-terrorist Muslims? Not at all. (Jeebus, he recently even pissed off Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf, his desperately-needed ally next to Afghanistan, by suggesting that if he didn’t get faster results against the resistance on the A/P border the US would send troops in itself!) But I think that’s simply a reflection of the Administration’s ignorance and ham-handedness about third-world Muslim nations in general, plus their American-imperialist blinkers. I think they seriously believe that it’s best for the whole world if America is essentially running it with unchallenged military and economic dominance, as per PNAC rhetoric, and that that’s all they really need to know.

They’re strongly convinced they’re right, to the extent that they don’t feel they really need to listen to anyone who disagrees with them, as I think the whole WMD-intelligence clusterfuck indicates. And it’s not just Muslims that they alienate with this attitude. Look at the way Bush pissed off the UN by asserting that they needed to contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq but would not significantly share in the decision-making.

All speculation and long-distance psychoanalysis, of course, but that’s what you’ve got when you start trying to parse the ulterior motives of people in power. I don’t know why Bush tipped so heavily toward Israel in the recent meeting with Sharon. Was he entirely aware of the impact of what he was doing? I read that the Administration has since distanced itself from the policy implications somewhat.

But in any case, I really really doubt that what Bush is actually after is an Armageddon face-off between Islam and Christendom, even if some of his right-wing Christian base might like the idea. I think he genuinely wants the democracy-domino notion in the Middle East to work, and figures that if we just get rid of the terrorist bad apples, everybody else will happily climb right on our bandwagon.

5

I don’t think there is a true antipathy toward Islam per se; it’s more of an opportunistic appropriation of Islam as an enemy of convenience.

I think Bush & Co. came into office with a deep desire to finish the job his father started. 9/11 gave them the sense of national emergency sufficient to claim the mantle of “wartime administration”, which allowed them some latitude in shifting their focus to Iraq.

Although they seemed happy to let people believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, the primary focus of the administration’s rationale for the war seemed to be pre-emption: WMD and all. The “Bush Policy” which claims the right to make pre-emptive strikes against hostile (but inactive) states, and the right to unilaterally decide who is hostile enough to warrent intervention, co-opted our national fears over the terrorist attacks and directed them toward Sadam.

If 9/11 had not occurred, I believe Bush would still have found a way to go into Iraq. OBL and crew just made it easier for them to make their case. I think the foreign policy has been pretty clear from the get-go: pre-emptive action, taken unilaterally, against states we consider a potential threat.

6

Hmmm, just saw this analysis by Rabbi Michael Lerner. His take is that it’s a mutual attempt by the leaders of Israel and the US to legitimize each other’s policies of occupation.

7

No. We simply don’t care what the Palestinians need or want anymore, since its become obvious they don’t care what happens to themselves and are ruled by murderous thugs.

Of course, you’re all simply wrong. Bush is neither stupid or evil, but foolish people who decide a priori he is because they are incapable of comprehending his goals: the complete transformation of the Middle East into democratic staes and the elimination of poltical and religious terrorism.

But please, continue misunderestimating him. That is why you fail.

8

Deluded and lunatical as Bush and his crew are, they could also have in mind that when refering to the Israeli land grab as “In light of new realities on the ground…” this same sentence can show itself to be extremely useful in a near future. As in: To sell an ongoing occupation of Iraq to the US electorate.

I would call it “pre-emptive thinking about legalising criminal annexation”
Read: In practice: Iraqi oil and other natural resources. Like water. Which is one of the long cherished dreams of Israel, actually.
Read also: Its strategical position in the heart of the region = US military bases = in practice: US settlements.
(In fact: In the implantation of military bases whenever they think it is strategically needed, the US has learnt a lot from Islamic history and Roman history both. However I tend to doubt that anyone in the Bush clan is even aware of it that Islam and Muslims have a history.)

As for the reaction in the ME: There is of course outrage and this is as usual combined with questioning the ME leaderships in their slavery to the USA.

To the Bush and/orSharon) worshippers who believe that this blatant US siding with Israel (once again, but this time so openly and arrogant that it surpasses every imagination) is going to prevent people from listening to lunatical raging fundamentalists and is “spreading democracy” (HA) in the region: Find yourself a good psychiatrist because you live in a dangerous finctionary world.

Salaam. A

9

Here’s the problem I see.

With his apparent beliefs, Bush has no incentive whatsoever to avoid exposing the U.S. to increased hatred or terror retribution. Past Presidents have tried to avoid seeming to partisan precisely because they were worried about America and American citizens becoming targets.

For Bush, encouraging terrorists to attack the United States is a win win. If they can stop an attack, it’s a big bragging point. If they fail, no one can possibly accuse the war President of not trying, and, since the American public has been so well spun on Spain as appeasers, he can urge Americans not to “appease” terror by voting him out. Either way, increased terrorism is a win-win.

Remember, the only ones to blame are the terrorists: never our own security measures for failing to stop them, never our foriegn policy for destabilizing hotspots or giving power to anti-American extremists within their own political contexts. Strategy and realpolitik are out the window now. And if someone points out that we had no trouble with these particular terrorists before we backed Sharon, they’ll be accused of blaming of the victim and being foolish for not realizing that all terrorists are the same.

We have a President that has personal and family proffessional conflicts of interest with terrorist sponsors in Saudi Arabia. And we have a President with no political incentive to actually make the world safer. Should it really come as a surprise when it turns out not to be?

10

On its face, your suggestion that Bush might consciously choose to encourage terrorism against the US is the most cynical analysis of the situation I’ve seen in a long time. I can only wonder why you would think Bush might choose to do so, when there are certainly other ways of solidifying his political image.

You cannot be seriously suggesting that Bush’s actions are motivated by personal gain, can you? This is nearly as extreme as the right wing’s “Clinton-as-murderer” screeds of the nineties.

11

I agree with your polarization (us vs. them) assessment; however, I disagree with the thesis the Bushkovites are pushing that program. Rather I think it is the key for various Islamist leaders, rulers, mullahs, warlords, etc. to legitmize their authority and divert attention away from their own domestic issues. Shame on Bush etc. al. for failing to present a clear, coherent and believable alternative.

12

I agree.

I don’t think the neocons are that smart or that organised to plan such a “win-win”. Everything smells of short terms expediency, reacting to events, and flailing around to shore up support in one areas while creating fresh problems that they can then turn to (Blair’s visit would not have been timed for now if all part of a master plan).

If anything I think it is the terrorists who are calling the shots here, in that the reactive nature of the Bush administration makes them very vunerable to manipulation.

Certainly Iraq has been an historic blunder as a reaction to 9/11 when so much is crying out to be finished off militarily, financially and politically in Central Asia.

Bush is finished - that much at least appears certain, the only thing that can save him is another hit on the US mainland. So I would guess that is what AQ is going to try to pull off. Having come so far, the last thing they will want is they key asset to be kicked out of office.

It is a difficult balancing act to pull off - keeping an idiot in power whilst advancing your own 20 year agenda - but objectively they have been remarkably successful thus far. The lastest concession to Israel is a real bonus…

13

I didn’t say anything about conscious choice. I said that he had no political incentive to avoid acts that would incite terrorism.

Here in America, we don’t have any serious way of devining the motives or true conscious choices of our politicians. They are, in fact, often irrelevant. Our whole political system is built on the idea that we can get politicians to do the right things not because they are good people, but because the system gives them good incentives and checks their more radical wishes.

And I think I pointed out some pretty good reasons why this lack of incentive might be important regardless of whether Bush has conscious thoughts at all. Namely, his position is that terrorists are bad people and do bad things, full stop. To consider the effect of policies on inciting terror or giving extremists the upper hand in various conflicts abroad, are issues that are treated as if they were traitorous anti-American suggestions.

If so, then he doesn’t have reason to think about the possible effects of his policies on the world situaiton, because no chain of causality flows backwards. And he has no political incentive: the thing we actually trust most to keep our politicians in line, to prevent an unswing in terror directed at the U.S.

Any normal person would consider the dangers of the U.S. aligning itself too closely with Israel’s position. One might come down on either side of whether those dangers are worth it, but at least one would have to acknowledge that there are dangers.

I don’t think Bush would acknowledge those dangers, because he has not demonstrated any willingness to acknowledge that his policy choices have any additional repercussions beyond fulfilling his per-determined agenda.

Conflicts of interest are not based on the idea of someone necessarily having explicit motives of personal gain from decisions they make.

Rather, given that his family has close ties to the Saudi oligarchy, it is proper to ask whether he can objectively ask the right questions about what our policies towards them would be. Those policies would directly affect family and personal friendships, involve investigating people who are close to him and his family, and who are deeply involved in the family businesses. The idea of him doing something explicitly for personal gain is silly. But the idea of asking if a doctor is really the best person to deliver objective medical advice to treat a family member, or if a judge should be trusted to rule on a case involving a close personal friend, is not at all crazy.

14

I think it’s just that Bush (and, to a large extent, the neocon movement) has a cartoonish view of the world. Bush divides the world (outside our borders, at least; it doesn’t seem to apply to gay marriage) into people who “hate freedom” and those who love it. If we’re attacking people who hate freedom, how can that possibly turn any of the vast majority who love freedom against us?

It doesn’t seem to occur to him that other people see the world in other ways, and react to events in ways that don’t fit that crude model.

It’s as if the Supreme Court appointed a ten-year-old to the Presidency.

15

The ultimate stupidity:

16

Apos:

I’ve wondered that on many an occasion.

I do hope you folks are right.

17

I second the “Justified Occupation” theory.

What I don’t get is this. When you have a region full of people who (by Bush’s definition) hate you, and one of their accusations is that you are a Zionist aggressor, how exactly does defending Zionist aggression fit into your plan of NOT pissing them off more?

I’m half convinced that Bush is an Al Qaida sleeper agent - I would be all the way convinced if I thought that anything the administration does initiates with him instead of with PNAC.

Bush clearly profits from the Cold Warrior mentality - what popularity he has left is based on fear, and fear alone. The PNACers were waiting to be attacked, and they got their wish. Worked out pretty well for both PNAC and AQ, huh?

18

Pakistan, Turkey, north African Arab countries from Morocco to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the Emirates are all predominantly Muslim countries that distance themselves from the kind of Islamic fundamentalism that you describe as the ‘them’.

I don’t see Bush particularly keen on making an enemy out of anyone from that list. If he’s on a crusade against Islam as a whole, he’s not doing a very good job.

Don’t underestimate your enemy.

19

Look, I honestly don’t know the answer to this. But have you ever thought about what would happen if someone got into the White House who was absolutely amoral - had not the slightest compunction about lying, manipulating, bribing, whatever, in order to achieve his/her own aims, which might be, for example, to get him/herself re-elected, and to promote the interests of the ultra-wealthy and/or his/her own family and friends?

I don’t know if that describes our current president or not. I have little doubt that it DOES describe some of the people around him (and some of the people around probably every president in the past fifty years). But I ask you this - how would his policies have differed from what they have been if the person I described in my first paragraph were in fact in office (other than possibly being more competent - there are clearly people in the current administration who have a far greater devotion to ideology than to facts - again, hardly limited to the current presidency).

The idea that this president (or almost any other) might be primarily motivated by self-interest hardly seems all that extreme to me, unless we’re talking about Jimmy Carter, whose post presidential activities have clearly indicated an interest in real public service regardless of your opinion of his abilities as president. I’m sorry, gdansk, I respect your opinion in general, but this just doesn’t seem in the same league to me as the idea that Clinton mysteriously had dozens of people vaguely associated with him murdered for inexplicable reasons.

20

sb: Of course, you’re all simply wrong. Bush is neither stupid or evil, but foolish people who decide a priori he is because they are incapable of comprehending his goals: the complete transformation of the Middle East into democratic staes and the elimination of poltical and religious terrorism.

Actually, if you look at my post three posts above yours, you’ll see that my description of Bush’s goals is exactly what you suggest here:

I have never thought that Bush personally is either stupid or evil: I just think he’s got a poor understanding of political realities, a simplistic ideology, and no clear notion of what it will really take to accomplish his goals. Don’t fall into the error of believing that those who oppose Bush, or even those who criticize him quite harshly, are necessarily just bashing him out of a priori dislike or incomprehension.