Gwb = Jfk?

Great Debates
1

I don’t think this question has been asked here; a search didn’t find anything. Anyway, with all the JFK stuff in the media, I was struck by what is to me a parallel in their foreign policy visions:

I am NOT suggesting that the two are similiar in oratory, intelligence, personal morality, executive ability, general political philosophy or in any other way. Anyone addressing those or other obvious but not germane dissimilarities will be hereinafter addressed with acidic pejoratives of the OP’s choosing.

NOR am I interested in discussing the general wisdom of W’s foreign policy; try one of the other 35 threads. And yes, we do know that Kennedy started the US involvement in Vietnam.

What I do want is feedback on whether the two shared the same essential vision: that it was America’s job to promote and defend freedom and democracy all over the world and were willing to use arms to that end if need be.

If you do not see the similarity, why not? If you do, what (besides “media bias”) is the cause of the apparently cooler reception for Bush?
http://www.jfk-info.com/jfkinaug.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027220959.html

2

Q: What is the role of the U.S. in the world?

BUSH: I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. We went into Russia, we said here’s some IMF money. It ended up in Chernomyrdin’s pocket. And yet we played like there was reform. The only people who are going to reform Russia are Russians. I’m not sure where the vice president’s coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000
So, which values were you speaking of again? It’s so easy to get them confused.

3

Why stick to GWB and JFK? This is the same premise that’s been voiced by any number of other Presidents - McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, etc., etc. The difference among them lies in how each chose which battles to fight.

Just to cite one example that comes to mind immediately: in 1956, Eisenhower could have come to the aid of the Hungarians, who were rebelling against Soviet domination. He didn’t, because it probably would have started WWIII. You can’t take on every challenge to freedom. Sometimes, the best thing you can do is voice your disapproval, and keep your troops at home.

GWB has chosen Iraq as a suitable battlefield. Many people think this was ill-advised, and has only made a bad situation worse.

4

Oh, and don’t forget this gem of a values statement:

Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force?

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means:

  1. Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened.

  2. Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000
Yep, that sounds like the George W. Bush I have come to know and love.

5

9/11 changed Bush’s thinking. I would think that recognizing that you need to change your views is a sign of maturity.

But anyway, Clinton also articulated this vision at many points during his campaign, as did George Bush and Ronald Reagan and earlier Presidents. What sets Bush and Clinton apart from the past Presidents like Kennedy and Truman is that they have acknowledged that the West has supported dictatorship, and that this needs to change. Sure, we continue to support certain dictators, but everything starts with talking about the need for change and as time passes, the vision becomes closer and closer to reality. Admitting that supporting dictators is a problem is an important first step. I only wish Europe would follow suit and also promise to try to foster democracy abroad.

6

Yes, Minty, we all know you dislike Mr. Bush. Thanks for the update.

I’m sure you’ve read several of the numerous articles that have been written about how GWB’s approach to foreign issues changed drastically post 9/11. The OP addresses the foreign policy W has come to currently embrace as president. If you wish to constructively address the question at hand, please do so.

7

If Bush has changed his mind, it’s about the required degree of proactiveness necessary for our national security, not changed his mind about the worth of fighting tyrants or expending lives just to win a chance for democracy in general. Where has he done that?

He’s trumpeting democracy in Iraq because that would be the best outcome that we’d all hope for, not because he’s willing to intervene anywhere solely to promote democracy. We are imposing our values there because like it or not, we are there anyway, not because we (as, indeed, his adminstration now implies) care about human rights or democracy enough as a general crusade to do something about it for its own sake.

I mean, have you heard about Zimbabwe recently? It’s a fucking nightmare of a sort of Nazi-youth party terrorizing the country, forced famine, foriegn journalists being kicked out, ridiculous puppet elections where only dictator supporters are allow to vote or get any food or medical aid, and basically anyone who opposes the government being evicted, murdered, raped, and tortured. Apparently a THIRD of the populace has AIDS, which is no wonder, because the mandatory youth camps, mandatory for girls, include lots of tolerated and sometimes even encouraged rape and sexual abuse in addition to the usual party indoctrination and weapons training. Its people are in desperate, desperate need of help, certainly no less than the Iraqi people (who, in many ways, were better off economically and in civil society).

But what’s going on in Zimbabwe doesn’t directly threaten the U.S. So it’s off the radar as far as where we spend our national security resources.

I’d say that this is pretty well consistent with the President’s campaign stance, though you can argue that that stance is no longer consistent with his rhetoric.

However, this is pretty funny, even if it is a distortion:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2003/11/20/boll/index1.html

8

**If Bush has changed his mind, it’s about the required degree of proactiveness necessary for our national security, not changed his mind about the worth of fighting tyrants or expending lives just to win a chance for democracy in general. Where has he done that?
**

Er, his public statements since 9/11 and his attempts to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, however incompetent some may feel these attempts are.

As for Zimbabwe, we can’t do everything everywhere, and that does not mean we should do nothing anywhere. Obviously, threats to our national security come before non-threats like Zimbabwe. I suppose we could just have a crusade against all dictatorships if you insist on us being consistent, but that would involve a huge increase in military spending and foreign aid that would crowd out social programs. Hey, if a President actually suggested doing that I’d be all for it, they can draft me if they want for a mission like that. But it’s probably not realistic to expect that kind of radical foreign policy change.

9

JFK: Civility is not a sign of weakness.

GWB: Bring it on.

10

Those quotes are just a bit mismatched. JFK wasn’t referring to terrorists. Somehow I don’t think JFK would have considered civiliity to the Mafia he was hunting down to be appropriate, and if a Mafioso had openly threatened him, I’d be “Bring it on!” would be his response.

Are you suggesting that Bush should be civil with terrorists?

11

I don’t see how the quotations are alike in tone or content. The first, Kennedy’s, is about supporting our friends. The second, Bush’s, is about what we will do to diplomatic friends who don’t agree and act with us.

And neither, in my mind, are asking the quesion of whether it’s “America’s job to promote and defend freedom and democracy all over the world and (that we are)… willing to use arms to that end if need be.”

I’m really not sure what “freedom and democracy” means in your mind, in any case, furt.

12

Well, when comparing quotes, we’re always going to be a little mismatched. In the OP, Kennedy was talking about the spread of Communism. Bush was talking about terrorism/oppressive regimes.

We’re comparing temperments and approaches. Kennedy, in the statement “civility is not a sign of weakness” was suggesting that states that are fundamentally enemies can still negotiate and find common ground to settle conflicts peacefully.

Bush, when stating “bring it on,” was casting the problem in terms of pure force and violence.

While I’m not suggesting that Kennedy would have negotiated with terrorists, I’m certainly suggesting he would have used the power of multilateralism and international regimes to confront terrorism and oppressive regimes.

13

But that is exactly my point. The democracy talk started up after we were ALREADY in those countries, at a point where it was pretty much “hey, what the heck else should we do? We can’t pull out, and we can’t stay here forever to rule.” What else WOULD we do, given that we control the country in a military fashion? Institute communism instead?
And we certainly haven’t been anywhere near as involved in Afghanistan’s rebuilding efforts as we have in Iraq’s anyway.

Which, again, is exactly my point. We aren’t engaging in nation building as a primary objective. The fact that we are in Iraq is primarily about security/US power concerns and that we happen to be building the nation is mostly incidental. We’re stuck there for a bit, and it’s our obligation as an occupying power. But we don’t really plan on staying there much longer (certainly not long enough to seriously rebuild an entire nation), and many top people are quietly pessimistic about there being democracy there as well anyway. We entered the country because of power/security reasons, and when we leave, it will NOT be because we’ve hit some point on any sort of “nation building” timetable. It will be because we’ve achieved whatever our security objectives are for needing to occupy that territory.

14

**While I’m not suggesting that Kennedy would have negotiated with terrorists, I’m certainly suggesting he would have used the power of multilateralism and international regimes to confront terrorism and oppressive regimes.
**

I think you’d be wrong. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly gave our allies collective heart attacks. And although he didn’t say “Bring it on”, he felt that a show of force was much more appropriate at that point than doing what Carter was inclined to do, be more “diplomatic”.

And I would say that Kennedy’s handling of the Mafia was somewhat equivalent to the war on terror, at least on the home front. I don’t think civility was ever an option, nor was multilateralism.

**But that is exactly my point. The democracy talk started up after we were ALREADY in those countries, at a point where it was pretty much “hey, what the heck else should we do? We can’t pull out, and we can’t stay here forever to rule.” What else WOULD we do, given that we control the country in a military fashion? Institute communism instead?
**

Well, if we were practicing Kissingerian realpolitik, we’d just appoint Karzai and leave Afghanistan, and appoint Chalabi and leave Iraq and hope for the best. Chances are, we would not get democracy, just another strongman. And in the past, that would have been fine with us.

**And we certainly haven’t been anywhere near as involved in Afghanistan’s rebuilding efforts as we have in Iraq’s anyway.
**

That’s mainly a cost-benefit analysis, combined with analysis of previous attempts to occupy Afghanistan. The safest way to deal with the Afghans is to pick the sides most likely to support democracy and give them as much support as we can. In Iraq, aside from the Kurds, there are really no sizable forces that we can support that would be likely to support democracy. Plus, insurgencies in Iraq have been successfully put down before. Arab guerillas don’t have nearly the reputation that say, Afghan or Vietnamese guerillas have, and their performance in battle seems to back that up. I think we are getting about one coalition death for every 50 attacks, which is pretty incompetent. So an occupation is doable in ways that Afghanistan is not. Then there are the benefits and likelihood of success. Iraq is much better suited to democracy than Afghanistan because of better infrastructure and better literacy and secularism of the population. An Arab democracy is also more significant in geopolitical terms than an Afghan democracy. An Afghan democracy is great for the Afghans, but doesn’t really set much of an example for anyone else. An Iraqi democracy could possibly act as a catalyst for change in other Arab states.

Which, again, is exactly my point. We aren’t engaging in nation building as a primary objective

Well, no, that’s true. In the end, national interests always rule. But human rights is a growing part of our foreign policy. And we have been involved in increasing numbers of pure humanitarian missions, such as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti. I’m not sure if Bush is all that keen on undertaking such missions, but it was definitely a big part of US foreign policy under Clinton.

15

Kennedy used the UN and the OAS as primary tools of dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis. That’s what gave the U.S. legitimacy and made the quarantine legal.

In the same situation, Bush would have used air strikes and invasion. He sees international organizations as primarily secondary to “real” force (military.) Kennedy saw international organizations as primary, to be coupled with military power.

16

Kennedy was fully prepared to go to war over this, and the results would have been far more catastrophic. It’s hard to predict how BUsh would react to a truly threatening situation. Judging by his ginger handling of North Korea, he’d probably be more inclined to find peaceful solutions than Kennedy, not less. Not to say that Kennedy was a warmonger and Bush is a man of peace, but Kennedy had no qualms about using the big stick, and he started using it long before all diplomatic options were exhausted. Today, most Presidents would go to the UN and talk about it for months. Kennedy went from diplomacy to force back to diplomacy in a matter of days. Bush took months to take action against Iraq, and tried very hard to get UN backing.

And I’m not sure how Kennedy got legitimacy from the UN. I recall no resolutions concerning the crisis, unless you are acknowledging that UN resolutions are unnecessary to use force against another nation.

17

The first casualties may have been under the Kennedy Administration, but Truman sent in the first military advisors and Eisenhower upped that number and sent in the first billion dollars if that counts as being involved. History books generally make note of our involvement in the conflict by 1954.

Some feel that Kennedy failed to protect Berlin by allowing the wall to go up in the late summer of 1961. One program that I watched recently said that he felt that in so doing, he was avoiding a much worse confrontation (and possible nuclear war) with the Soviet Union. Is this an example of Kennedy’s not following his stated policy?

There was a flexibility about Kennedy that served him well. A lot went on behind the scenes in dealing with the Cuban Missle Crisis, for example, that left some room for face-saving for the Soviets. My impression is that Bush would not consider that sort of manuevering. But I could very easily be mistaken.

18

Interesting example to use to judge GWB’s actions. What about Iraq? The UN and multilateralism as a principle was only used as an afterthought. The decision to go to war had already been made.

True, Bush did take months to act in Iraq (now you’re there too, I noticed.) However, this was not to make time for diplomacy to act or to give the UN time to act. It was to get troops, materials, and logistics into the area.

True, no resolutions from the SC were passed. But, with the USSR having veto power, that’s impossible. Do you recall the immense sway in international opinion that happened after the USSR ambassador, having claimed time and again that there were no missiles in Cuba, is presented with the U2 photos? I suggest you read Arther Schlesinger’s “Thousand Days” to get a full take on the story.

In my opinion, Bush would have gone to the military option much quicker and much more aggressively than Kennedy. Yes, Kennedy was ready to go to war over Cuba. Yes, he was ready to use the military option. However, he also realized that multilateralism had a power in itself. Once his actions through the UN and the OAS (which you didn’t address) legitimized the quarantine, the USSR realized that it was in an untenable position politically and withdrew the missiles.

Judging by his handling of Iraq, I’d surmise that Bush would have made some sort of speech saying that Cuba is evil, cannot be trusted, and we cannot leave our security in the hands of others. He would have immediately bombed the missile sites and invaded Cuba. The UN and OAS would have been go to after the fact to legitimize the action already taken.

19

A final thought for tonight:

Kennedy’s MO was much more nuanced than Bush’s. He worked through multiple channels and used multiple tools to accomplish his objectives.

Maybe he’s just a product of the times, but GWB’s MO has been much more simplistic and militaristic. It’s clear that he views international organizations and diplomacy as secondary tools, to be used as a backup.

20

Interesting example to use to judge GWB’s actions. What about Iraq? The UN and multilateralism as a principle was only used as an afterthought. The decision to go to war had already been made.

I wouldn’t say that. There was a very hard attempt to get UN backing. More than Clinton tried for his attack on Serbia. MIlitary action was also contemplated against North Korea by Clinton, and I don’t really remember any serious effort to consult the UN aside from the minimum formalities. I applaud Clinton for his decisiveness and willingness to go it alone if necessary. I also wonder if Bush blundered by spending so much time having this debate. Past Presidents never asked, “May I?” to anyone but Congress.

True, Bush did take months to act in Iraq (now you’re there too, I noticed.) However, this was not to make time for diplomacy to act or to give the UN time to act. It was to get troops, materials, and logistics into the area.

That’s a good point, but Bush has waged two wars and in both cases worked hard to get UN approval. In the first case he succeeded in the second case he failed. Regardless of the other circumstances, he did try the UN route.

**Once his actions through the UN and the OAS (which you didn’t address) legitimized the quarantine, the USSR realized that it was in an untenable position politically and withdrew the missiles.
**

Although I agree that the OAS was important, I’m a bit mystified that OAS+US equals a coalition, but US+Britain+Eastern Europe+Italy equals a “fradulent coalition”.

Judging by his handling of Iraq, I’d surmise that Bush would have made some sort of speech saying that Cuba is evil, cannot be trusted, and we cannot leave our security in the hands of others. He would have immediately bombed the missile sites and invaded Cuba. The UN and OAS would have been go to after the fact to legitimize the action already taken.

It’s possible, but he would have taken longer to do it, or might have wussed out after talking big. We have yet to see Bush take on a truly monumental enemy like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I do agree with his current strategy of ignoring North Korea’s demands while trying to handle it multilaterally, but I think the contrast between bellicosity on Iraq and skittishness over North Korea makes the US look like paper tiger.