Even for those of us who have always believed that the Bush administration’s foreign policies were simplistic, naïve, misguided and ultimately doomed to failure, the present foreign policy shambles is shocking to behold. The litany is depressing.
The hole we have dug for ourselves in Iraq just gets deeper as the chaos there continues unabated. Not coincidentally Iran, emboldened by the fact that it has little to fear from the threat of an American army bogged down in the Iraq morass, pursues its quest to become a nuclear power whilst flexing its muscles as a significant (and now, thanks to us, strengthened) regional player, as we see in both Lebanon and Iraq. North Korea, for some of the same reasons as Iran, has continued to press ahead with its nuclear aspirations and efforts to develop an intercontinental range missile. A resurgent Taliban along with an increasingly disillusioned populace now threatens the stability of the government of Afghanistan, particularly in the south of that unhappy country. And now we have the threat of a new Middle-East conflict, or at least the possibility of the toppling of a democratically elected government in Lebanon, as Israel squares off against Hamas and Hezbollah over the capture of a handful of Israeli soldiers. The administration’s unconditional support for Israel and its unwillingness to become seriously engaged in the peace process in the region leaves it with little influence on unfolding events there.
If it were not so tragic, it would be almost laughable to recall the mellifluent assurances from Dick Cheney that the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Suddam Hussein would usher in a period of comparative tranquillity in the Mid-East as moderates and the forces of peace and democracy were emboldened and extremists retreated or quaked in their boots. Removing Hussein, showing American military might and resolve, combined with the adoption of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike against perceived threats, we were told, would serve notice on the other members of the “axis of evil” that we would not tolerate their nuclear aspirations. Sure.
The reality is that the other charter members of the AOE took to heart the opposite lesson; that to be weak, as Iraq was, invited attack, whilst becoming a power to be reckoned with, preferably nuclear, would deter American aggression. The logic of their position is inescapable, as subsequent events have proved.
The policy of pre-emption has been shown to be a sham. It was simply a subterfuge for the invasion of Iraq. If it had been a genuine doctrine, and if the administration had felt it had to invade somebody it would have attacked North Korea before Iraq, since the former was a more bellicose regime, much further along the path in its nuclear aspirations and possessed a developing missile technology that could potentially threaten its regional neighbours. There was never any question of attacking North Korea, however. Militarily it was a much tougher nut to crack even without nuclear weapons. Not to mention that its neighbour, China, might not welcome a second Korean War on its doorstep. So we invaded Iraq which, to the Bush administration and its neo-conservative cheerleaders, appeared to be much easier pickings - a massive miscalculation for which we will be paying in blood and treasure for many years to come.
Invading and occupying Iraq has had adverse consequences beyond the death and destruction that country suffers every day. Afghanistan had been the one genuine foreign policy triumph of the Bush administration. In shifting key military assets to Iraq before we had properly defeated the Taliban we have almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The amount of reconstruction aid and investment has been wholly insufficient to meet the tremendous needs of the Afghan people - another consequence of the Iraq imbroglio. More and more Afghans question whether NATO and the allied coalition are there to help them build a more civil society or just to fight the Taliban. If the people turn against us, things could get much uglier in Afghanistan.
The greatest irony of all is that had the administration stopped its military interventionism at Afghanistan, the United States may well have enjoyed unparalleled influence in the world. We had used a fraction of our might to overthrow a cruel Islamist regime which harboured and actively supported al-Qaeda. Had we spoken softly and carried but not waived our big stick, engaged with our allies, used diplomacy to achieve our foreign policy objectives, there is no telling what could have been achieved. By invading Iraq, however, we have lain bare the limitations of American military power. The Army and Marine Corps are stretched thin; troops are on third, even fourth tours of duty in Iraq. Iran, Syria and North Korea are bold because they know they have little to fear from an America bogged down in Iraq and tired of it.
Bush’s polices have been either ineffective in heading off the series of crises that have erupted in the Middle-East and the Korean peninsular, or they have actually exacerbated them. For a president whose strong suit was considered to be foreign policy and who must now be turning his attention to the legacy he will leave behind, there is precious little to cheer about.
0 Responses to “Foreign Policy Shambles”