The Bush Foreign Policy - Essay Example

The Bush Foreign Policy: Taking Credit, Placing Blame The man who claimed that he was not bewildered would write himself down a fool. We are challenged, every one of us, to think our way out of the terrors amidst which we live. Walter Lippman (1915) When Walter Lippman penned these words almost a century ago, Europe was on the march to the first Great War in Europe. America was working to stay uninvolved amidst the challenges of a changing world. Diplomacy and foreign policy are no more or any less challenging in today's world. At its heart, foreign policy is designed to secure the nation, the public, and to promote peace and prosperity. Diplomacy, the chief instrument of foreign policy, has been given the task to negotiate the ends that foreign policy has deemed important. These goals can often conflict and render a government into an untenable position. Diplomacy may be given a goal of reaching an agreement with a nation that will not agree to the terms set forth by our policy. This is the position that America finds itself in today. The Bush administration has drawn some very clear lines against some very real enemies. Diplomacy has been ineffective due to the conflicting nature of negotiation and the Bush administration's policy of standing pat in a rapidly changing world. Bush's foreign policy has been based on, and in response to, the events of 9/11. That terrorist action changed the way America viewed the rest of the world as well as its own vulnerabilities. It required a reshaping of policy to fulfill the requirement that foreign policy has of keeping the population safe and secure. It called for a swift and immediate overhaul of government agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to minimize the possibility of future attacks. It called for a rapid response against the perpetrators to assure the public that everything was being done that could. These first few steps, however admirable, were more designed for national public politics than affecting foreign policy. In the ensuing months, almost every foreign policy decision made has been to support the war on terrorism or to promote the policy on an internal political basis. In the September 17, 2002 National Security Strategy paper George Bush stated that the United States would, "... exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities" (Bush, 2). This declaration, initiated in a Strategic Planning Paper authored by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz 10 years earlier, signaled a dramatic shift in policy. The policy had shifted from national defense to national offense. It authorized the pre-emptive attack on any nation that may be harboring terrorists or aiding them in any fashion. Though the motivation may have been honorable, the strategy was at best untenable in today's world of elusive terrorists that are able to cross borders and manage funds by concealed accounts. He closed the document by saying, "Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. The characteristics we most cherish-our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life-are vulnerable to terrorism" (Bush, 5). Clearly he was crafting a policy that called for war on anyone, anywhere, that threatened his perception of our modern way of life. Much of his foreign policy has been geared toward the enemies that threaten to end the American way of life. He has promoted and advocated for liberalized trade around the globe in an effort to de-politicize the economic systems of the world. He has pushed for free markets and privatization as a means to place democracy in the market place. At stake is our American concept of freedom and the right to human dignity for all men. Bush's foreign policy has been crafted to promote this concept around the world through the vehicle of free market choice. He believes that if people are given a choice that they will choose democracy. However, in resistant nations, which may be cultivating terrorism, he has opened the doors to the option of military action and left little room for diplomacy. With the end of the Cold War, America was left as the world's only super-power. The world was left in a position to deal with the new American hegemony. In a speech at West Point in June, 2002 Bush explained the nations of the world wanted to embrace a hegemony as long as it was benign and shared their same cultural values and beliefs (cited in Gaddis, 52). This may make some political sense, but once again fails to accommodate diplomacy in carrying out the new hegemony. Abd al-Ilah Balqaziz, a journalist from North Africa states that the United States is, "...using the pretext of fighting terrorism, fanaticism and intolerance to undermine Islam, because the Arabs and Islam are the only obstacle in the face of today's empire under American hegemony" (cited in Najjar, 92). In a world with a hegemony and an unchallenged military, there is no room and little need for effective diplomacy. That is the position that the current administration has led us to. President Bush's foreign policy and war on terrorism have not been successful because they have failed to concede that diplomacy has a function on the world political stage. The administration has lost the ability to negotiate for the American way of life in exchange for the hegemonic ability to force it. The war on terrorism is not conducive to a large standing army and an occupying force. The very nature of terrorism is often fought in the psychology of the public as much as through military might. It is tackled through the close cooperation of countries around the globe that share intelligence and resources. It is a battle that diplomacy should be playing a larger role in. According to Carothers, "The State Department has shown some real commitment to raising human rights and democracy issues with these countries. The Pentagon, on the other hand, often focuses more on the immediate goal of securing military access or cooperation and less on the politics of the relevant host government". When governments place such high value on the Pentagon and US military strength, these mixed messages result in diplomacy being ignored (Carothers). Strengthening a nation can lead us closer to eradicating terrorism than trying to kill all the terrorists. In a world that may be agreeable to a benign hegemony, the US may be able to enlist enough moderate support around the world to make it impossible for terrorist networks to operate. The US could also advocate for greater freedoms and political power through diplomacy. The ongoing threat of terrorism is more a function of politics than religious fundamentalism and their extreme actions were their method of rising up against the tyranny of their own nation as much as they were against the American lifestyle (Gaddis, 53). Terrorist states have much to lose in the war on terrorism however it is fought. Even in the states currently labeled as terrorist nations, moderates are willing to move toward a more diplomatic and peaceful solution. The concept of a diplomatic and political solution should also be extended to the war in Iraq. Iraq is at a juncture where it is time to withdraw the US forces and allow Iraq to reach its own political solution. This does not require an act of Congress to set a timetable or threaten the war's funding. This needs to be accomplished by the Commander in Chief in concert with the legislative bodies and the American public. Winning or losing the war is more a matter of definition of the endpoints than any situational scenario. Success has never been defined so the administration could define our current status as a success. We've eliminated an evil dictator, routed and identified the terrorists, and made democracy possible. It will now be up to the Iraqis to embrace their newfound freedom from oppression. The theory is that if the Iraqi's hand is forced, they will find a political solution because they will prefer that to war. Diplomacy can enlist the aid of the other nations in the region including Syria and Iran. Iraq, which is largely moderate, will find the will and the means to make it impossible for the terrorists to operate there. Our continued presence only prolongs the ongoing fighting between insurgents, militias, and sectarian violence. With the cooperation of the region's nations, the terrorists will have nowhere to operate or train. Of course there are no clear guarantees to any solution, but it is clear that the status quo has not succeeded and will only continue to fail. Setting a timeline will only prolong the inevitable withdrawal whether in 6 months or 2 years. Failure to set a date or an endpoint will almost assure an extended war of attrition. Our military is wearing thin and the public's patience is waning. It is clearly up to Bush to take the appropriate action. Going forward from the foreign policy debacle of Iraq and the failed approach to the war on terror, America needs to make some policy adjustments. As the hegemony of the world, the US is in a position of special responsibility. As stated earlier, the world will only tolerate a 'benign' hegemony. It is America's task to lead the world's nations to peace and prosperity through our concept of free market capitalism and freedom. We should not apologize for an economic system that creates wealth. We do, however, have a responsibility to see that the wealth is shared justly. We have made strides in that direction as demonstrated in Vietnam which has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The US has also led the world as the leading global source of philanthropy. George Bush is credited with the establishment of the Millennium Challenge Account in the years immediately following 9/11. It set aside $5 billion per year to go to countries that are, "...ruling justly, investing in their people, and establishing economic freedom" (Radelet). The administration has also diverted $15 billion in 2003 to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean (Radelet). This use of foreign aid can be a working diplomacy tool that can pave the path toward future negotiations with moderate nations. By balancing our will for diplomacy with our need for military might, we can lead the world down the road to freedom instead of pushing it into an uncertain future. Works Cited Bush, George W. "Cover Letter." The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2002): 1-5. 15 May 2007 . Carothers, Thomas. "Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror." Foreign Affairs 42.1 (2003). EBSCO. 15 May 2007. Gaddis, John L. "A Grand Strategy of Transformation." Foreign Policy 133 (2002): 50-57. JSTOR. 14 May 2007. Lippman, Walter. The Stakes of Diplomacy. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1915. Najjir, Fazui. "The Arabs, Islam, and Globalization." Middle East Policy 12.3 (2005): 91-106. JSTOR. 14 May 2007. Radelet, Steven. "Bush and Foreign Aid." Foreign Affairs 82.5 (2003). EBSCO. 15 May 2007. Read More