The end of cowboy diplomacy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CharlestonChad, Jul 9, 2006.

  1. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/09/coverstory.tm.tm/
    The end of cowboy diplomacy
    Why the 'Bush Doctrine' no longer works for Bush administration

    Sunday, July 9, 2006; Posted: 12:46 p.m. EDT (16:46 GMT)


    Manage Alerts | What Is This? Time.com -- All the good feeling at the White House at President Bush's early birthday party on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that the president finds himself in a world of hurt.

    A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory.

    And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland.

    Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.

    Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.

    The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.

    Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years.

    After September 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it.

    They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help.

    The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.

    But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation.

    The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad.

    The administration is paying the bill every day as it tries to cope with other crises. Pursuing the forward-leaning foreign policy envisioned in the Bush Doctrine is nearly impossible at a time when the U.S. is trying to figure out how to extricate itself from Iraq.

    Taking note and taking advantage
    Around the world, both the U.S.'s friends and its adversaries are taking note -- and in many cases, taking advantage -- of the strains on the superpower. The past three years have seen a steady erosion in Washington's ability to bend the world to its will.

    The strategic makeover is most evident in the ascendance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has tried to repair the administration's relations with allies and has persuaded Bush to join multilateral negotiations aimed at defusing the standoffs with North Korea and Iran.

    By training and temperament, Rice is a foreign-policy realist, less inclined to the moralizing approach of the neoconservatives who dominated Bush's cabinet in the first term. Her push for pragmatism has rubbed off on hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney, the primary intellectual force behind Bush's post-9/11 policies.

    "There's a move, even by Cheney, toward the Kissingerian approach of focusing entirely on vital interests," says a presidential adviser. "It's a more focused foreign policy that is driven by realism and less by ideology."

    To much of the world, that's a relief.


    Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.
     
  2. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    :blah2: :sleep:
     
  3. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,858
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,741
    Awwww does this mean Bush won't get re-elected?
     
  4. Otter_Creek
    Offline

    Otter_Creek worst president ever

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    The Former USA
    Ratings:
    +144
    Oh Dear!!! Another hate Bush op-ed brought to us by the main stream media!
    :baby4:
     
  5. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    There's a reason the MSM/DNC are charging headlong toward irrelevance. The fact that they don't know (nor do they NEED to know) the inner workings of Bush's foreign policy doesn't deter them from passing the harshest possible judgement on it, or indeed exposing its most delicate and sensitive aspects - when doing so suits their anti-Bush agenda. A case in point is the recent NYT debacle over international banking transactions. How are they going to survive - in a business whose lifeblood is public trust - when, again and again, they prove to be A) nakedly anti-Bush, and B) wrong?
     
  6. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    This story is no different than anyother article someone posts on this forum, except it does not put Bush in a good light, and/or it's sole purpose is not to bash the American Liberal. Other than that, it's just another destructive article intended to further seperate the American political spectrum.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Your thread is :bsflag:
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    It is a textbook example of the shameful, monopolistic manner in which information was disseminated in this country for the thirty years before talk radio, Fox News, and boards like this began to impart some equity to the scheme. And its intent is not to "further separate the American political spectrum" - it is to CONTROL it. The MSM/DNC just don't have the horses to do that anymore.
     
  9. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128

    Apparently it does b/c most Americans disapprove of Bush, yet I can't remember ever seeing Fox news say anything bad about bush, and talk radio just bashes democrats in a half-ass attempt to distract the public for the fact that bush is an idiot who is damaging our country.
     
  10. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    It's about time you bleating sheep got rounded up for market. "Nobody" liked cowboy Reagan either and he won the rodeo. Just because Bush talks first doesn't mean he won't shoot later. If you had won the election this is what would have happened to your all hat-no cattle leader...
    :chains:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page