The debunking of Bush's speech at the American Legion

Hours ago, President Bush gave a foreign policy speech at the American Legion in Salt Lake City, Utah.  This followed a day of protests throughout the city.  Thousands of demonstrators -- senior citizens, the mayor, peace activist groups, and even parents carrying children on their shoulders -- marched to show their disapproval of President Bush and the Republican Congress.

This morning, the President continued where Donald Rumsfeld left off: portraying those who oppose the war as either incompetent or thoughtless.  But instead of covering the dirty rhetoric like most other blogs or some cable shows will provide you with, I would like to quote excerpts of his speech because it's important that we highlight why Bush's views about the war on terrorism represent a shift in American foreign policy thought over the last twenty years: from pragmatic realism to black and white idealism.

Midway through the speech, Bush tried invoking the Administration's revisionist history on what it was like before 9/11:

"We realized that years of pursuingstability to promote peace had left us with neither.  Instead, the lack offreedom in the Middle East made the region an incubator for terroristmovements.The status quo in the Middle East before September the 11th was dangerousand unacceptable, so we're pursuing a new strategy.

Two key points here.  First, Bush believes it was wrong for his father and Bill Clinton to pursue stability and promote peace.  He is indicating quite clearly that stability and peace are precursors to instability -- a statement that is a contradiction in of itself.  And second, Bush says that a lack of freedom leads to terrorism.  But among political scientists and historians, terrorism, commonly referred to as asymmetrical resistance, is dependent upon ideas, recruitment and the scarcity of resources, which are all interlinked.  In other words, you can't recruit just any average Joe willing to die for a cause.  What Bush is leaving out is the variable of resources.  Imagine what it would be like to believe that killing yourself and others would be more productive than living.  So what Bush left out, although freedom is certainly one factor, are the roles that poverty and a lack of education can play in producing young individuals that feel hopeless enough to kill themselves and others.

In the next quote, Bush generalized that democracies don't start wars:

Democracies don't attack each other or threaten the peace.  Governmentsaccountable to the voters focus on building roads and schools -- notweapons of mass destruction.

Just look at the latest Defense bill.  The FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations, submitted to Congress on August 7th, asked for $4.8 billion that will go towards the Department of Energy's nuclear program.  Last time I checked, nukes are a weapon of mass destruction.  And in response to the former, that democracies don't "threaten the peace," Bush can't say that the war in Iraq came to our shores first.

The third quote, well, it speaks for itself:

In the three years since Saddam's fall the Iraqi people have reclaimedsovereignty of their country.

Again, the ignorance there speaks for itself.

Next, Bush disagrees that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terrorism:

Some politicians look atour efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror.  That wouldcome as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the "third world waris raging" in Iraq.

Please don't quote Osama bin Laden to make a political point.  That's pretty cheap.

The last quote pretty much summed it all up:

We will not allowthe terrorists to dictate the future of this century -- so we will defeatthem in Iraq.

There you go, straight from the President.  We wanted all the terrorists to go to one place, so we started the war in Iraq.  Come on.  It's about time to start talking to fully-grown American adults as if they are adults.
-------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Freedom Eden, Outside the Beltway, The Democratic Daily, Americablog.

Comments

[George]

"We realized that years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. Instead, the lack of freedom in the Middle East made the region an incubator for terrorist movements."

It's as if he thinks that the Taliban controlled the entire Middle East. Isn't that what it sounds like?

[Harold Somer]

Bush's wierd, wild, outrageious speach was obviously pointed to the right wing ultra conservative (conservative? try "reactionary")fair based fundementalists who still believe that Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
It iz puzzling that Bush didn't include Rice's tid bit about the "Mushroom Cloud" or our vulnerability to the Mongolian hourds or the armies of Ghengis Khan.
McCartheism is not only alive and well, it is flourishing through the guidance of Karl Rove and his gang.

[Alfred]

First off, thank you for your analysis. Unfortunately, I have some difficulties with what you have written.

"First, Bush believes it was wrong for his father and Bill Clinton to pursue stability and promote peace. He is indicating quite clearly that stability and peace are precursors to instability -- a statement that is a contradiction in of itself."

This analysis appears misguided. President Bush stated quite clearly that: "We realized that years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither." You take this to mean that peace and stability are being indicated as a cause of their opposites, this is not what the President said. Going from the actual contents of his speech and from some of the general tenets of his administration's foreign policy, I can say that President Bush is trying to make a distinction between the realist view of "peace and stability" and his own neoconservative view. For one, it is his position that stability and peace are not the highest good one can acheive, rather it is the evolution of countries into peaceful liberal (using the broadest meaning of the word) democracies. Also, foreign policy with a myopic view of the world that focuses on stability and peace in the short-term can often let conflicts fester, and make the situation on the ground worse, and degrade the safety of people of the world in the long-term, because such policies encourage friendly relations with "stable" dictatorships. Granted, this administration's relationships with the Pakistani government and Saudi Arabian government undermines the moral high-ground associated with wanting freedom for all, but it is a step away from viewing stability as the best one can accomplish in a region. Thus, the Presidents words are not in any way, given his views, contradictory, and such analyisis smacks of superficial thinking that is unlike you. Instead, you could have lambasted the ambitious idea that democracy is at all possible or desireable in places with little to historical or cultural institutions to support it.

You second point was better and more interesting: "Bush says that a lack of freedom leads to terrorism." I agree that lack of economic opportunity and general impoverishment greatly influences the calculus one theoretically does when one decides to asymmetrically resist (to use your euphemism). Yet it is here that your point becomes muddled. If poverty and lack of education contribute to terrorist recruitment, then it would appear invading a country, democratizing it, and opening up economic opportunity for its citizens would go a long way to improving the situation (easier said than done, to be sure). Are you contending that Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime was more likely to increase the economic wellbeing of the citizens of Iraq, and improve their educational system? This confuses me, clarification would be helpful. Also, if ideas that one encounters are linked to one's decision to join a terrorist group, then surely a repressive regime, one little resembling anything like an open society, would hurt the chances of a person finding alternatives. You may be right that the President left key factors out, but having no control over one's life (read: not having freedom) surely instills a sense of hopelessness, something you cite as a motivation for terrorism.

On your next point, I believe you are somewhat right. The blanket statement that countries nebulously identified as democracies are forever and always peacable is false. Nevertheless, it is true that democracies tend to not attack each other. When the people of a country are making the decisions (even by proxy through an elected representative), it becomes less likely that they will desire war, owing to the fact that they will be the ones fighting it. The weapons of mass destruction thing is neither here nor there, we already have nuclear weapons, which is the big threshold anyway. Again, to call the situation in Iraq prior to the invasion "peaceful" is folly, in my opinion. I can't see how a dictator who ordered the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Kurds is peaceful. I fail to see the situation where the sunni baathist minority oppressed the shiites in pre-invasion Iraq peaceful. If you mean to say that it is not our problem because they weren't American citizens, merely other human beings, then I suggest you advocate it clearly.

I understand what a delicious opportunity for knee-jerk cynicism the next quote was, but I really wish you had actually contributed something of value. The point here was that Saddam Hussein's government crossed the boundaries of what someone can legitimize citing sovereignty, at least in the opinion of those who supported the war. The elections in Iraq signal the return of sovereignty to their government, however unstable it is in the short-run. I fully understand that as far as domestic affairs go, the Iraqi government is a long way from really living up to what a sovereign government should be, but in the international arena, it has been regained.

On your next quote, I agree completely. I can't see how citing Osama Bin Laden's views give credibility to any political view whatsoever, let alone the terms of engagement.

As for your last point, there are far better quotes to support your pet theory than, "We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century -- so we will defeat them in Iraq." Namely, the entire "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" stuff. In the President's view, the conflict in Iraq is a contest between those who wish to see a more free Iraq, and terrorists who do not, for various reasons. It would probably be more clear if he said he wanted to defeat the terrorists who are already in Iraq, but as it stands it is sort of a leap to extrapolate from this quote that it was the administration's plan to draw terrorists to Iraq.

George: I agree that the brand of wahabbi Islam that the Taliban enforced contributed more to fostering terrorism than Hussein's secular Ba'athism, but you really fail to respond to the contention that lack of freedom causes terrorism. A useful argument you can make is that the suspects in the recent British airplane plot enjoyed the freedom of a Westernized country yet still chose to pursue terrorism.

Harold Somer: I fail to see what in the speech led you to your conclusions. If one believes that rogue states and terrorism are both dangerous, and the nexus of the two much more so, it does not mean that either is inncuous without the other. I do not see the basis of your McCarthyism comment. If you meant to say that because of the way the Bush administration is framing the conflict, any critics of United States policies in turn become allies of the enemy, then say it. Your point is obscured by your brevity.

I apologize if any of what I wrote was unclear, and I look forward to response.

[George]

Alfred, Interesting points across the board, however I think that everyone is losing sight that Bush's remarks still all boil down nothing more than a poor excuse as to why he decided to start a war in Iraq which has now evolved into at best a quagmire for the USA.

Bush cares about the freedoms of Iraqis as far as it gives him a pedestal to stand on to justify his own crimes against them. Lack of freedom does not foster terrorism (see Iraq circa 2001), anarchy fosters terrorism (see Afghanistan circa 2001), and belligerent, self-admitted oil-addicted nations feel the pain (no one is attacking Brazil, Canada, Japan, etc), however this does not give Bush the right to start all out wars against random nations.

[Administrator: Todd]

Thanks for commenting. Now let me respond to what you have said:

1) "I can say that President Bush is trying to make a distinction between the realist view of 'peace and stability' and his own neoconservative view."

That's exactly right. The problem is that his point is a veiled one that only intellectuals and think tanks are meant to understand. I was trying to raise awareness to the fact that President Bush has never put his anti-realist approach into words that most Americans can understand, such as if he were to say, "I do not believe peace and stability (characteristics of neo-realism) are precursors to liberal democracy." If he had the guts to say that, then the American people would have a better idea where he is coming from.

Now to your next point:

2)"When the people of a country are making the decisions (even by proxy through an elected representative), it becomes less likely that they will desire war, owing to the fact that they will be the ones fighting it."

If that is true, then explain our current forward foreign policy that, according to what you said, should be less likely to happen in a democracy. Or are you suggesting that the democracy in our country is eroding? Why does George W. Bush desire war then? Are you saying he is undemocratic because he desires to prolong the war in Iraq even though we have done all that we can militarily? Also, don't just assume that it is "unlikely" for democracies to fight one another. Democracy has only recently been successful in the world. What if 200 years from now every state in the world was democratic. Do you really think there would be no war? See, this is why I subscribe to neo-realism (balance of power theory). At the very root of it all, wars don't start because of ideologies, they start because states or groups think they can gain economically, politically and socially from it. The only thing ideology is used for is to justify war.

We all love democracy, and should promote it as best as we can. But the Wilsonian idea that democratic states never fight one another, while it does for the most part pass the historical test (just because democracy is young), does not hold up when approached philosophically.

Now to your next quote

3)"It would probably be more clear if he said he wanted to defeat the terrorists who are already in Iraq, but as it stands it is sort of a leap to extrapolate from this quote that it was the administration's plan to draw terrorists to Iraq."

I also wish he was more clear, but don't bet on it. He wants to present a one-dimensional view of the geopolitics of terrorism because that is the kind most swing voters will understand in this election season. And no, I don't think it's a "leap." Bush said all along that his plan was to fight the terrorists abroad so we won't fight them here. So by starting wars all over the Middle East, he can keep terrorists fighting the U.S. there...as if to say that the terrorists are all in one place.

I will add one more thing. Between four and ten percent of the insurgency is foreign. The rest are individuals that are part of local militias; and those militias are part of families that have lived in Iraq for hundreds and hundreds of years. So if we leave Iraq, the idea that they would follow us home is not sound.

I'll address one more point you made:

4) "Are you contending that Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime was more likely to increase the economic wellbeing of the citizens of Iraq, and improve their educational system?"

In the Sunni region of Iraq, the answer to your question is ABSOLUTELY! What he did to the Shiites and Kurds explains why NATO should have spent much more money funding their resistance movements, and continued to enforce the no-fly zone as they did. By funding their resistance movements, the goal would not have been to wait for them to topple Saddam Hussein. The goal would have been for the Shiites and Kurds to break off from the British-drawn Iraq and form their own countries -- which might ultimately be the solution to our current mess.

I didn't proof read, so I apologize if some of this doesn't make sense. lol

[shb]

you're such an idiot... what you missed is that though the Middle East may have seemed stable, it lacked freedom and peace. Your assumtion above about the Stability Quote is a false one.

[George]

Yes and now the Middle East has Freedom, Peace AND Stability! Thanks to the USA. Can I get a USA chant?

[Alfred]

"The problem is that his point is a veiled one that only intellectuals and think tanks are meant to understand. I was trying to raise awareness to the fact that President Bush has never put his anti-realist approach into words that most Americans can understand, such as if he were to say, 'I do not believe peace and stability (characteristics of neo-realism) are precursors to liberal democracy.'"

Why would the President desire to communicate to only a group of experts in a public speech? This is silly. It is as if you believe he is speaking in some esoteric crypto-Straussian code that only elites can truly comprehend. Again, we are running into problems of definitions here when we write of "peace" and "stability." If you would clarify what exactly these two words should be taken to mean here, I would be grateful.

"If that is true, then explain our current forward foreign policy that, according to what you said, should be less likely to happen in a democracy."

I direct your attention to the key words "less" and "likely." Providing one counterexample does not respond to the reasons I gave in my last post. Also, we are not at war with other democracies at the moment, and if both parties are democracies then a conflict becomes less likely because of my previous reasons.

"Or are you suggesting that the democracy in our country is eroding? Why does George W. Bush desire war then? Are you saying he is undemocratic because he desires to prolong the war in Iraq even though we have done all that we can militarily?"

The answer to the first question is simple: No, I am not. I doubt George W. Bush desires war. War is horrific. War tears people and societies asunder. For all his faults, George W. Bush is not a violence-loving psychopath. I believe the President deems this war necessary primarily to make America safer now and in the future, and secondarily to spread freedom and democracy as per a moral obligation. Both goals are intertwined with one another, and, according to the President, inseparable. Being "undemocratic" has nothing to do with the decision to not leave the Iraqi people to bloodshed and chaos. That we have exhausted all our military options has yet to be seen. A quick survey of any number of strategists show this.

"Also, don't just assume that it is "unlikely" for democracies to fight one another. Democracy has only recently been successful in the world. What if 200 years from now every state in the world was democratic. Do you really think there would be no war?"

I did not assume, I gave clear reasons. In my last post I wrote: "The blanket statement that countries nebulously identified as democracies are forever and always peacable is false. Nevertheless, it is true that democracies tend to not attack each other. When the people of a country are making the decisions (even by proxy through an elected representative), it becomes less likely that they will desire war, owing to the fact that they will be the ones fighting it." It appears you missed my conceding of the point that democracies will still war and my support for why it is, neverthless, more unlikely.

"See, this is why I subscribe to neo-realism (balance of power theory). At the very root of it all, wars don't start because of ideologies, they start because states or groups think they can gain economically, politically and socially from it. The only thing ideology is used for is to justify war."

Interesting viewpoint. Yet the perception of expected political, social, and economic gain from a war is also shaped by a group's or individual's ideology. Especially social. Also, it appears with this war in particular that expected economic benefits were to be used to pay for the war itself, and to begin the development of the Iraqi economy afterwards. Needless to say, no such thing has occurred. Ideas shape how those on both sides act in their everyday lives, and should not be discarded as thin façades that hide cynical drives for power, profit, and popularity. Though I concede that such reasons are nearly always included within the calculus of beginning a war. Also, the best way to accomplish economic progress and popularity (both of which can lead to power), is to attempt to make the world a more civil and peaceful place. The question whether or not such Wilsonian idealism is, always and everywhere, a mistake and counterproductive has not been answered sufficiently by anyone. In the specific case of Iraq, I believe the eventual outcome is unknowable. Realists and neo-realists alike, in my opinion, run into ethical and moral problems when they imagine the grand chessboard. Such as what are the limits of legitimate sovereignty? If genocide is occurring halfway across the world, are we not to act? Are such genocides preventable in the first place by encouraging human freedom and stable liberal democracies? It would be so much easier for me if I thought it was defensible position that the United States of America, as the world's only superpower, has no obligations whatsoever to attempt to make the world a better place. I would love to be "ok" with the prospect of hiding in our shell, protected from the outside world by our location and advanced technology, and leave troubled parts of the world to rage against themselves, no matter the human life lost in the process. But I am not. Regime change and preemptive war seems to be able to prevent larger conflicts in the future, and can be the beginning of a larger process to improve the world. There is no question that the lives of soldiers and innocents lost in the process are of incalcuable value, but less death is better than more. Freedom is better than tyranny. And, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is the least bad form of government. The balancing act that realists and neo-realists attempt can in many wars turn out to be a greater cost than adressing problems at earlier points, before the problem grows. The strain on the scales of the world can increase even when both sides of it are in balance, and initial recalibrating can prevent an eventual shattering. Also, i must emphasize that this does not boil down to some "ends justify means" argument, rather that there are a number of possible ends, and the difference between two outcomes must be weighed against one another when considering the correct course of action.

"We all love democracy, and should promote it as best as we can. But the Wilsonian idea that democratic states never fight one another, while it does for the most part pass the historical test (just because democracy is young), does not hold up when approached philosophically."

I am in agreement. I still maintain it is less likely, besides, democracy confers other myriad benefits in addition to more peace.

"And no, I don't think it's a "leap." Bush said all along that his plan was to fight the terrorists abroad so we won't fight them here."

Ahem: "As for your last point, there are far better quotes to support your pet theory than, 'We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century -- so we will defeat them in Iraq.' Namely, the entire 'Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here' stuff." I was merely pointing out that reading too far into some statements can lead to trouble, not that the thrust of your argument was false. It was the support you chose to cite that troubled me.

"So by starting wars all over the Middle East, he can keep terrorists fighting the U.S. there...as if to say that the terrorists are all in one place."

This war was a long time coming. Saddam Hussein could not account for previously inventoried chemical and biological weapons, and was a clear and persisten danger to the United States, Iraq's neighbors, and the Iraqis themselves.

"I will add one more thing. Between four and ten percent of the insurgency is foreign. The rest are individuals that are part of local militias; and those militias are part of families that have lived in Iraq for hundreds and hundreds of years. So if we leave Iraq, the idea that they would follow us home is not sound."

It is true that only a small minority of the insrgency are of foreign origin, but some of the most dangerous factions, like the Al Mahdi army, are in some way influenced and/or funded by other powers in the region or terrorist networks. In the Al Mahdi case, it appears they are quite beholden to actors within Iran. Such efforts to exploit the chaotic situation in central and southern Iraq are some of the main reasons that the United States should not allow insurgents to succeed in capturing the power and influence they desire. Also, I was never very convinced of the "fight them over there . . ." argument in the present-day sense, but addressing some of the root causes of radicalism in the Middle East is important. Of course, it is difficult to divine such "root causes" and in absence of that one can resort to eliminating those who are in positions of power that encourage extremism.

"In the Sunni region of Iraq, the answer to your question is ABSOLUTELY!"

A minority of the population, I should point out. And the type of education and opportunies that such a regime would provide are troubling to imagine.

"What he did to the Shiites and Kurds explains why NATO should have spent much more money funding their resistance movements, and continued to enforce the no-fly zone as they did."

And yet they did not. I agree on the no-fly zone point, but the first Gulf war really helped that along. In absence of overt conflict it is difficult to wrangle together disparate nation-states in pursuit of such action.

"By funding their resistance movements, the goal would not have been to wait for them to topple Saddam Hussein. The goal would have been for the Shiites and Kurds to break off from the British-drawn Iraq and form their own countries -- which might ultimately be the solution to our current mess."

Yes, it may be the solution, but I would sumbit that redrawing borders will lead to conflict. It is doubtful a happy consensus can be reached in many areas between the central concentrations of the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. Also, I am very sceptical of how such a grand cleaving could have occured with Saddam Hussein still in Baghdad.

As far as what to do now in Iraq, I am of the camp taht we should do all we can to not lose. By lose I mean lose what control we and the Iraqi government hold and leave Iraq worse than we found it. Premature withdrawal of U.S. troops will cause a bloodbath, and that will surely give more people a reason to hate the United States. It is wrong ethically, morally, and strategically to leave Iraq without a stable enough government.

Interesting points all around, and I shall look more into neo-realism. Care to suggest any good sources on it?

[Alfred]

Addendum: For all my rhetoric concerning "we must not lose," my outlook on our current prospects is quite pessimistic. Considering the gross mismanagement of our military's infrastructure and equipment and the poor "anti-insurgency" strategies thus far, there is not much to be hopeful about. I still would like to believe this war is winnable, and if it is the window is sure not to be open much longer. Surely, in the medium- and long-term there are steps the United States can take to better its position in these matters, and I do not think there really exists a point of no-return where regions of Iraq (like the Anbar province) descend into near-permanent periods of chaos. On the one hand, I would like to believe that the United States could aid the people in this region more, but the current situation does not have more promising aspects than expected pitfalls. On the other hand, it remains unacceptable to leave Iraq worse off than we found it, and even if this is in fact the reality at this point (and one must accept reality), that does not preclude better options in the future opened up by more enlightened leadership. Not considering disagreements concerning the rightness of invading Iraq in the first place, it seems to me that our base disagreement is that one side believes that there is no chance that United States can improve the situation (or it is such a small chance with such a high cost, that it simply should not be sought), and the other rates our chances a little better (especially with better management by the administration) and views the possible benefits of prevailing a little higher than the likely costs.

Of course such evaluation is very difficult considering the obstacles to gaining a clear assessment of the situation in Iraq right now, and the ethereal nature of the effects of possible courses of action.