August 2, 2006
THESE BEING THE SAME GUYS WHO BETRAYED THE SHI'ITES TO SADDAM?:
Bush’s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father (SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, 8/02/06, NY Times)
“He told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,†said one person present, given anonymity to speak about a private conversation. “It was like, ‘Whoa, where did that come from?’ “That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As the president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah — even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation — some advisers to the father are expressing deep unease with the Israel policies of the son. [...]
Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role through the prism of the fight against terrorism. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro-Israeli component of his conservative Republican base.
The first President Bush came to the Oval Office with long diplomatic experience, strong ties to Arab leaders and a realpolitik view that held the United States should pursue its own strategic interests, not high-minded goals like democracy, even if it meant negotiating with undemocratic governments like Syria and Iran.
The current President Bush has practically cut off Syria and Iran, overlaying his fight against terrorism with the aim of creating what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls “a new Middle East.†In allying himself so closely with Israel, he has departed not just from his father’s approach but also from those of all his recent predecessors, who saw themselves first and foremost as brokers in the region.
In a speech Monday in Miami, Mr. Bush offered what turned out to be an implicit criticism of his father’s approach.
“The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East,†Mr. Bush said. “For decades, the status quo in the Middle East permitted tyranny and terror to thrive. And as we saw on September the 11th, the status quo in the Middle East led to death and destruction in the United States.â€
What could be more damning than that the Realists are neutral as between a democratic ally and enemy dictatorships?
MORE:
Apocalypse Now: BUSH'S FAILED ISRAEL STRATEGY (John B. Judis, 08.02.06, TNR Online)
Since the early 1980s, if not before, American administrations have been torn between two very different approaches to U.S.-Israel relations. The first, which dates back to the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, conceives of the United States as an "honest broker" between the Israelis and their Arab adversaries. The second, which dates from the Reagan years, conceives of Israel as a "strategic ally" of the United States amidst the Arab Middle East. Presidents and their policy advisors have often wavered between the two conceptions, but the Bush administration has come down squarely on the side of the latter--with disastrous results for the United States and for Israel.
Funny how, when they're out of power, liberals become Realists too, so that they can oppose conservative presidents even if it means betraying their own ideals. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 2, 2006 12:00 AM
oj:
Considering that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive dictatorship and the most important source of manpower, ideology, and funds for Islamic terrorists, you'd think that the Saudis would be the first target for "Leninist" internationalists like you. Do you think the US should attack Saudi Arabia and topple the regime, or do you take a Realist stand vis-a-vis them?
Posted by: Mörkö at August 2, 2006 2:50 AMThat said, it may well be that there are very good reasons why this has not been done yet, or perhaps should not be done at all. I don't know what they are, and I don't have the security clearance to find out what they might be.
Posted by: Mike Morley at August 2, 2006 7:29 AMWhich idiot was surprised by the idea that the US would use military force if necessary to prevent Israel from being wiped out? Even Nixon started mobilizing the US military in 1973.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 2, 2006 9:08 AMThe Sa'uds will lead and fund the Reformation because, as anyone could have told them, Wahabbism threatens them, not us. They're easy enough to topple if it turns out otherwise.
Posted by: oj at August 2, 2006 10:05 AMDavid: You are correct about that. In 1972 we strongly backed Israel to the extent of stripping aviation logistical assets from Americam reserve units.
The "honest broker" line never meant that our power did not ultimately underwrote Israel's right to exist.
The recent MSM and Democrat view of administration policy as exceptional comes from religiously derived Bush Derangerment Syndrom. What those people are saying is that Bush is exceptionally attached to Israel because of his "irrational" espousal of Christianity--sort of the same way he opposes stem-cell research.
Of course, the opposite is true. Our alliance with Israel is chillingly realistic. As it appeared thaat Britain was a largely spent force at the end of World War Two, we needed to step up to out role as Weltmachthaber in the Middle East. This was because of the geopolitical significance of the area, both as a choke point and as a locus of strategic resources.
Our system would never support a robust geopolitical realism. Can't you just hear it, "War is good business--invest your son," and the old favorite, "No blood for oil!"
As we have seen, it all has worked very, very well. The Democrats and their MSM toadies who never stop beating the drum about all the Bush "Fiasco," are falling all over themselves to show they are backing Israel.
As I have maintained in the past, our alliance
with Israel has three legs, the religious being only one of these. We share also a cultural heritage as settler nations--peoples of the wagon train, and, most importantly, the cold calculation of geopolitical realism.
An alliance with Israel was another matter however, and Israel became our hostage to hegemony. Is is not that Israel uses us, but that we use Israel to keep ourselves in the great game.
Posted by: Lou Gots at August 2, 2006 10:23 AMRelated to Morko's question:
Are the Saudis off-limits for US power due to their 'control' over Mecca and Medina?
And if the Saudis felt truly threatened by Al-Qaeda or some Shi'ite enemy, would they ask us for help (similiar to 1990)? Would we give it (unconditionally)?
Posted by: ratbert at August 2, 2006 12:52 PM"Funny how, when they're out of power, liberals become Realists too, so that they can oppose conservative presidents even if it means betraying their own ideals."
Why do you think they are "betraying" their own ideals? Seems to me they never really held them in the first place.
Posted by: andrew at August 2, 2006 1:07 PMoj:
In other words, you are a Realist as far as the Saudis go, but you like to pretend that you aren't.
Posted by: Mörkö at August 2, 2006 1:14 PMNo, the Sa'uds aren't even Realists anymore, which is why they're Reforming.
Posted by: oj at August 2, 2006 1:21 PMrat:
No one is off-limits. But the Sa'uds are doing what they need to so why would we oust them?
Posted by: oj at August 2, 2006 1:27 PMWhy is this so hard? Sun Tzu wrote down all the important things 2500 years ago.
http://www.artofwarplus.com/wordpress
The primary goal is not to "destroy your enemy" but rather to "advance your position". By doing the latter, you effectively implicitly do the former.
See Dean, H., Kennedy, T., et. al, for examples of why making the former your goal is a losing tactic.
Posted by: fred at August 2, 2006 3:12 PMAt its current pace of reform, Saudi Arabia will cease to be an oppressive dictatorship around AD 3000. Until then America will presumably pursue a Realist policy towards them. Right?
Posted by: Mörkö at August 3, 2006 5:48 AMMorko:
Chile, Spain, the Philippines, the Dominican, etc. all evolved much more quickly than that. It's the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Saudi Arabia will be a monarchical republic within your lifetime.
Realists oppose such change because they prefer the stability of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
Posted by: oj at August 3, 2006 8:19 AM