Is the Bush Administration incompetent in international affairs?

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 19:55

This is a thread devoted to non-partisan appraisal of Bush's competence in world affairs. Over the last few weeks I have become convinced that Bush is incompetent when it comes to IR. I used to think he was tolerably bad, but I am now convinced that he's a complete cowboy (in the British sense as well).

Let me be very clear, I am not a person who sympathises with Republicans or conservatives of any brand. I think they are in most cases slightly mad and in many clearly deranged. On the question of economic policy, which is where most thinking people give conservatives credit, I am also of the opinion that they are generally hopeless ideologues with a poor understanding of efficiency and the role of government in the economy. All that being said it is apparent that I do not hold Bush and company in high regard.

However, that is not ostensibly the purpose of this thread. What I want to propose is that when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy the Bush administration is simply incompetent. I?m no admirer of Bush senior or the Reagan administration but I would never make this claim about them - they were clearly superior players. However, I think there is a good case for a non-partisan judgement of incompetence when it comes to the current bunch (bad pun

).

International relations is a delicate and difficult business. Almost every state, and elements within states, have their own agenda. Given that it is impossible to prevail on everyone by means of force to get one?s way, considerable skill is required. As a general rule, which holds in most political situations, you should be happy with getting about half of what you really want and overjoyed if you manage to get most of it with a significant amount of compromise. This holds for even the most powerful international actors: other people exist and have different aims than you, so you will never get all you want at a price you are prepared to pay. This is sufficient reply to those dreamers on this forum who believe that the US can simply do anything it likes whenever it wants to. If you believe this, then you shouldn?t be talking about international relations and should devote yourself to some socially useful activity, like gardening.

As I write, Bush has placed himself in the position of having to wage war, with or without UN approval. He can?t afford to back down because it would be a major victory to Saddam Hussein and a major loss of face for the United States, which would promptly dump him at the next election. I think Blair has placed himself in an even more precarious position for various reasons, but I will not go into that here.

So what?s wrong with the Bush administration? Well it is not unilateralism per se, after all the Clinton administration was remarkably unilateralist (quote Madeleine Albright, ?We will act multilaterally if we are able to, unilaterally if we must?). What it is, is the way in which the Bush administration has gone about it. Let?s look at a few of the dumb things he and his mates have done.

Case one: North Korea. The United States has an interest in overthrowing the North Korean regime (so indeed do many others, including the North Korean people) and replacing it with one more friendly to itself. Unfortunately, North Korea has a huge well-equipped army and is not a sufficient threat to the US mainland to make an all out war politically feasible. Moreover, it?s right next to China which makes a military solution much more tricky, and many South Koreans would take a dim view of the war on their fellows.

When Bush came to power North Korea was on its way to being effectively contained and the previous eight years considerable positive progress had been made. People on either side were being allowed to see their relatives for the first time in 50 years and there was a definite thaw in relations between North and South and de-escalation in North Korea?s military ambitions. This thaw was almost all in the direction of the South Koreans and thus in favour of the US position. The reason for this is that the North Korean state was failing, people were starving and the heavy military expenditures forced on it by the regime were unsustainable (we?ve heard this story before: the Soviet Union). The very first steps in what would have been the long (very long) process of an eventual reunification and the end of communist rule in North Korea had been taken. I admired the Clinton administration for their efforts in this area. There is more, but that?s the main outline.

Then that idiot Bush, for no sound reason (at least according to international affairs critics) announces in his (post 911) state of the Union speech that North Korea is part of an ?Axis of Evil? and needs to be dealt with severely. What this had to do with 911 is opaque to everyone since NK has no ties with OBL. Now the North Koreans are a pretty bad lot and everyone knows this, but to come out and say it in public was an absolute howler. Add to this stuff the new ?pre-emptive strikes? policy and it is reasonable, from the North Korean point of view, to believe that the US intends to overthrow the regime by force. So North Korea withdraws from the non-proliferation treaty and begins the process of credibly arming itself with nuclear weapons. It also starts threatening its neighbours and acting very badly. There is a reason for this behaviour, what NK wants is for the US to sign a non-aggression treaty ? in short they want to go back to the situation as it was under Clinton.

In short, years of hard diplomatic work that had begun to yield tangible results gone in a few weeks. Even if Bush had wanted to deal with NK in a couple of years time, he should have kept his mouth shut and the North Koreans would have been less prepared for it.

Case two: Iran. Now the situation in Iran had improved immensely (comparatively speaking) in the last few years. The forces of reform were in the ascendant and the forces of religious conservatism were slowly losing their grip. Most Iranians were pro-US (this from an Iranian I know) and would have liked to work towards normalising relations with the US as a way of increasing the power of the reformers. The Iranians want to US to recognise that they are a sovereign state and treat them with some respect. If this happened it would undercut the anti-American radicals in that country. Again, this was a slow improvement, but an improvement nonetheless, and moreover an improvement that showed no signs of regressing.

Again, Bush names them ?evil? and basically undoes most of this.

Case three: Israel. Clinton worked tirelessly to try to find some sort of solution to the Palestinian problem. The US has considerable influence here and has an interest in finding some sort of tolerable arrangement for no other reason than a large portion of anti-American feeling in the Middle East (and hence a large factor in forging terrorists) is based on the poor treatment of the Palestinians. An American mediated solution to the Palestinian problem would win praise from most of the world and help to rehabilitate the image of the US among ordinary Muslims. In other words: it?s the world?s premiere political eyesore and it destabilises the (geopolitically important) region.

Bush?s solution: effectively do nothing and thus create as much resentment as possible in the Islamic world and more troops for AQ. Again ? years of painstaking diplomatic work undone in a very short time.

Case four: Iraq. Here Bush has managed to get himself committed to a war and has narrowed his options so much that he will have to go to war, whatever the consequences. In short this has been an international nightmare that threatens to ruin what fragile international institutions there are. In Europe, the United States has gone from being viewed by ordinary citizens as a bit of a pain in the neck to being seen as an international menace. The repercussions of this will make it more difficult for the US to act in Europe and places pressure on NATO (the US really needs NATO more than Europe needs it: the reasons for this are clear but would take too long to explain).

It didn?t have to be this way. I watched the aforementioned Ms. Albright in an interview the other day and she thinks (and I am inclined to agree) that a more conciliatory (or diplomatic ? in the other sense of the word) approach would have given the US much of what it wants, a substantial degree of wiggle room and less opposition. She amusingly described the way she used to ?massage? the Europeans (a horrifying image

) into getting her way.

In short, he?s gone at it like a bull at a gate, which is what you should never do in these situations. Furthermore, the US was internationally humiliated at the UN on Friday and across most of the word on Saturday.

There is more (the World Court, the Kyoto Accord, the ABM treaty, etc.) but the overwhelming impression to me is that the Bush administration is incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs ? it is paying a far too high diplomatic price for the gains it has made. The Clinton administration is a case in point (BTW - I absolutely loathe Clinton, but he was a smooth negotiator). Under Clinton the US pretty much did what it wanted and managed to slip it under the radar of most of us. Why can?t Bush do the same?

And before you retort ? no I don?t think that 911 is the explanation for all this (there are various reasons). I?m of the opinion that Bush has squandered much of the goodwill (and there was a lot) that the US gained from that.

Boris Godunov · February 16, 2003, 19:58

Any administration that could so completely squander the good will of the international community that was generated following the September 11th attacks would indeed qualify as incompetent re: international relations.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 20:01

Boris, I posted this about a minute ago. Please don't tell me you merely agreed without reading the whole thing.

Admittedly, it might be a bit boring, but the joke about Madeleine Albright's massages makes up for it IMHO.

Boris Godunov · February 16, 2003, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Boris, I posted this about a minute ago. Please don't tell me you merely agreed without reading the whole thing.

Admittedly, it might be a bit boring, but the joke about Madeleine Albright's massages makes up for it IMHO.

I skimmed--there wasn't much new to me in the post. But I don't need to read it to agree that they are incompetent when it comes to international affairs. I see that for myself every day.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 20:05

OK, fair enough.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 20:11

sadly Bush does indeed seem so, Clinton for all his faults ( and there were many ) did manage to keep good relations with the rest of the world whilst ensuring the US economy was doing well.

That does make me think how nice it would have been to see how Clinton would have handled things differently...

DanS · February 16, 2003, 20:28

Bush has been an excellent foreign policy president so far.

Foreign policy isn't a popularity contest. Bush has pushed hard to try to solve some problems left to him in a quick fashion, and it doesn't surprise me at all that some don't like being on the receiving end. There is a lot of inertia.

The "squandering" of good will happened almost immediately after 9/11. The US attacked Afghanistan, which nobody liked, even though it was entirely justified and the results have been extraordinary so far. This is a classic case of blaming the victim--the US must have done something to make people kill them, etc.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 20:41

the Bush administration has run roughshod over international opinion whether it be peaceful ( Kyoto or ICC ), or war based - Iraq.

And that is why the goodwill has gone, nothing makes you lose faith in an ally than when the ally ignores you. Oh and maybe because Bush seems to think that war is just an extension of diplomacy rather than the last resort.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Bush has been an excellent foreign policy president so far.

Foreign policy isn't a popularity contest.

I'm sorry, when you are trying to get large numbers of people to do what you want it is largely a popularity contest, because coercion on a grand scale is not feasible.

Quote:

The "squandering" of good will happened almost immediately after 9/11. The US attacked Afghanistan, which nobody liked, even though it was entirely justified and the results have been extraordinary so far.

I'd take issue with the last statement. There was nowhere near the opposition to the Afghan adventure that there is to the Iraq debacle. The protests here in TO for the former garnered at most a few hundred hard line radicals (no I didn't go), whereas yesterday's event got about 50,000 people most of whom could not be described with any accuracy as "left wing agitators".

In any case the Afghan war was at most only a partial success.

DanS · February 16, 2003, 20:47

There was nowhere near the opposition to the Afghan adventure that there is to the Iraq debacle.

This is mainly because of the time elapsed between Hussein was put on notice until now.

I'm sorry, when you are trying to get large numbers of people to do what you want it is largely a popularity contest, because coercion on a grand scale is not feasible.

The US is not coercing anybody, except Hussein. We will do it ourselves, if necessary. Preferably not.

DuncanK · February 16, 2003, 20:49

Agathon,

You can't expect people to read a long post like that. Anyone should be able to skim though all of that. I give him a low mark. He should have had an easy time considering 9-11. Instead he over stepped and did not try to compensate for the fact that many people in the world do not consider him a legitimate president.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 20:52

I don't think that many around the world care any more about the voting problems, they have more of a problem with his impulsive policies. Everything must be done his way and it must be done NOW. Some of his administration annoys me too, only Powell can be applauded for his actions so far.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Agathon,

You can't expect people to read a long post like that.

I was only joking with Boris.

Since I started the thread I just thought I should give reasons why, in order to "pre-empt" asinine objections.

DanS · February 16, 2003, 20:54

Everything must be done his way and it must be done NOW.

Yes, it's a little brusque. But time is of the essence.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Everything must be done his way and it must be done NOW.

Yes, it's a little brusqe. But time is of the essence.

why is time of the essence though? If containment has been good enough for the last twelve years, why is war needed so badly ( within weeks )?

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
There was nowhere near the opposition to the Afghan adventure that there is to the Iraq debacle.

This is mainly because of the time elapsed between Hussein was put on notice until now.

Which explains why the majority of protesters I spoke to still have no problems with going after AQ.

Quote:

The US is not coercing anybody, except Hussein. We will do it ourselves, if necessary. Preferably not.

Do you want me to say, "Bribing" or "Blackmailing" instead?

DanS · February 16, 2003, 21:03

If containment has been good enough for the last twelve years, why is war needed so badly

Our perceived threat has skyrocketed, making judgment of success for containment measured on a different scale.

Which explains why the majority of protesters I spoke to still have no problems with going after AQ.

But I was talking about Afghanistan in particular. Nobody liked that the US took the Taliban down. That's where the good will went.

Do you want me to say, "Bribing" or "Blackmailing" instead?

Bribing is fair game.

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 21:05

Bush doesn't do as good a job as many other administrations did but he still gets things done so that means he's not incompetent. As Gerneral Katusov (Supereme commander of all Russian forces during Napolean's invasion) said: "The easiest and most incompetent thing any man can do is to do nothing. If he does nothing then he can do nothing wrong but he also will not do anything right. A competent man will take calculated risks."

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
If containment has been good enough for the last twelve years, why is war needed so badly

Our perceived threat has skyrocketed, making judgment of success for contained measured on a different scale.

Perceived threat being what information the US public is receiving from the administration. As has been proved Iraq & OBL are not linked but that info probably got stomped down on as being to harmful to the case for war. It's far too easy to get cynical that this war is just to distract the US public from the ailing economy.

Oerdin · February 16, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Do you want me to say, "Bribing" or "Blackmailing" instead?

Welcome to the real world my friend.

DanS · February 16, 2003, 21:10

As has been proved Iraq & OBL are not linked but that info probably got stomped down on as being to harmful to the case for war.

They are perceived as linked by the administration, at least in an enemy of my enemy is my friend way.

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 21:10

I have no problem with bribery, i.e. "aid", or other options on a government level to get things done but it's depressing that Bush is just so piss poor at it. We all knew that Bush was weak on the foreign front when he was elected but just how weak was a shock. His advisors have just not impressed.

When it's important to retain an united front, Bush has managed to annoy all but his closest allies, and even they are starting to lose faith.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
As has been proved Iraq & OBL are not linked but that info probably got stomped down on as being to harmful to the case for war.

They are perceived as linked by the administration, at least in an enemy of my enemy is my friend way.

Heh SH is an enemy of OBL, therefore as OBL's enemy is my friend SH is a friend

DanS · February 16, 2003, 21:11

Demerzel: I don't think Bush could have done Iraq in a way that didn't annoy some of his closest allies. Nobody wanted to act against Iraq in a relatively short timeframe, but he did. He pushed, because he thought it was worth it.

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 21:12

Oerdin: I didn't suggest that he do nothing (though I think he'd cause less damage if he did), just that he be more diplomatic about it and avoid creating needless problems.

Well then, I'll add to the thread title:

Bush is incompetent at IR and also at bribery.

There you go.

DinoDoc · February 16, 2003, 21:20

Is it really fair to blame Bush for the NK situation given that the North Koreans have been violating the agreed framework almost from the time it was worked out?

I also fail to see how the Israel/Palestinian situation can be laid at his door step given the intransience of both sides.

Shi Huangdi · February 16, 2003, 21:24

WRT Iran its fine to call them for what they are. No use dealing with Khatami when it is clear he has no power. I think it is important he maintain the moral courage to do what Clinton failed to do and enforce the terms of the allies peace treaty with Iraq

Nubclear · February 16, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is it really fair to blame Bush for the NK situation given that the North Koreans have been violating the agreed framework almost from the time it was worked out?.

Yes.

DinoDoc · February 16, 2003, 21:25

How so?

Demerzel · February 16, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Demerzel: I don't think Bush could have done Iraq in a way that didn't annoy some of his closest allies. Nobody wanted to act against Iraq in a relatively short timeframe, but he did. He pushed, because he thought it was worth it.

possibly. I think my own problem with this war is that we've heard a multitude of reasons ( *ahem* excuses ) for why we need this war. As each reason is shot down as not relevant/true, another appears.

Yes some allies might have been offended, but a way might have been found to ensure some unity rather than the obvious fracture in the alliance.

Berzerker · February 16, 2003, 21:30

Quote:

This is a thread devoted to non-partisan appraisal of Bush's competence in world affairs. Over the last few weeks I have become convinced that Bush is incompetent when it comes to IR. I used to think he was tolerably bad, but I am now convinced that he's a complete cowboy (in the British sense as well).

Let me be very clear, I am not a person who sympathises with Republicans or conservatives of any brand. I think they are in most cases slightly mad and in many clearly deranged.

Non-partisan.