Bush evolves, gradually.
Today's New York Times has the latest on Bush and the Great Global Democracy project. Unsurprisingly, Bush compares Iraq to the United States during the American Revolution:
Speaking to the International Republican Institute, Mr. Bush said the American Revolution had been followed by "years of chaos," and that the first effort to develop a governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, had "failed miserably."
Since my own knowledge of American history doesn't go much beyond "very basic", I won't have crack at this. But this bit of snark from a blogger over at DailyKos is priceless:
"George Bush's analysis is completely correct. Prior to the American 'Revolution', France had blockaded America for over a decade, destroying it's infrastructure in near indiscriminate bombing, encouraged the south to rebel then stood back while the British ruthlessly crushed the rebellion. Then since the colonists were too lazy to revolt themselves against their hated enemy the British, the French invaded the country and drove out the British destroying everything in their path (except things vital to the cotton industry). Then they occupied the country and suspected anyone who spoke English to be a potential terrorist. The first few governments of French appointed ministers failed too, just like in Iraq."
To me, though, the really interesting part of the Times article was this:
Mr. Bush used the speech to continue his gradual reversal from a central commitment of the 2000 presidential campaign: that he would never use the United States military for what he called "nation building."
On Wednesday night, he celebrated the military's nation-building role, saying that while "the main purpose of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists overseas," members of the armed forces are "also undertaking a less visible, but increasingly important task: helping the people of these nations build civil societies from the rubble of oppression."
The article goes on to describe the American military's civilian nation-building exploits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The notion of Bush's "gradual reversal" on nation building conjures up all sorts of images: of a morally and ideologically conflicted Bush, together with his loyal, longserving aides, poring over books and journals and brainstorming late into the night while less burdened American citizens sleep or work the nightshift; meeting with different military analysts and scholars and historians from across the political spectrum to sound out expert opinion; hosting conferences and foreign policy dinners at the White House to encourage robust, raucous debate; consulting regularly with Middle Eastern democrats in exile, world leaders, and even the elected political oppositions in the West, whose support and understanding might someday be needed in nation-building projects; and groping slowly, meticulously, toward an informed, practical, trans-ideological position on the rights, responsibilities and limitations of the US and the West in the international arena, and on the best ethical-achievable course it should take in shaping this maddening, complex, increasingly integrated and interdependent world.
Just as a refresher, here was Bush in the first presidential debate in 2000:
"The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously...If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration."
Bush also said, (albeit referring to tax cuts but in response to a larger question about competing ideologies), that it's not the government's job to determine "right and wrong".
Here he was debating Kerry four years later:
"Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.
That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we'd turn away. But there was fortunately others beside himself who believed that we ought to take action.
We're making progress. But the front on this war is more than just one place. The Philippines -- we've got help -- we're helping them there to bring -- to bring Al Qaida affiliates to justice there. And, of course, Iraq is a central part in the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave. The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.
Much of this response was to Kerry's opening salvo that:
"But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein."
(If it hasn't been remarked upon enough, this was a simply phenominal reversal in the parties' political-ideological positioning, right down to Kerry ticking off the names of generals who supported him and his realism over the other guy's utopianism, something Bush had done in the same debate four years earlier. The only difference was that the Dems had actually nominated a different guy with mostly different advisors. With Bush, it was all part of that "gradual reversal" that, as of today, has him preaching the virtues of "Provincial Reconstruction Teams...helping the Afghan government to fix schools, dig wells, build roads, repair hospitals, and build confidence in the ability of Afghanistan's elected leaders to deliver real change in people's lives" and of "the First Cavalry Division's...Operation Adam Smith - setting up local chambers of commerce, providing Iraqi entrepreneurs with small business loans, and teaching them important skills like accounting, marketing and writing business plans.")
But the real crux of the matter is captured in that "September 10 mentality" comment. Because, frankly, this "gradual reserval" business is pretty new. It certainly wasn't the myth on which Bush's reelection was built. The selling-point for Bush in 2004 wasn't that he deliberates and evolves; it's that he had the ability, the instinct, to change his worldview immediately on September 11, 2001 in response to the new, awesome threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. Afterall, "911 changed everything" -- specifically, it transformed that backslapping libertarian we thought we'd (not quite) elected into the "war president" we really needed -- one who was resolute and singleminded while others debated and doubted and muddled through. As Bush told Bob Woodword in 2003, "I haven't suffered doubt." That was his selling point. It was instinctual -- and religious -- but not intellectual.
That was how Bush's supporters sold it too. The examples are endless. Sabastian Mallaby, endorsing Bush in the Washington Post, while acknowledging the tactical failures of East Asian nation building, concluded this way:
The case for Kerry in this election is the one made, inadvertently, by Novak: We have no idea what either candidate would do next, so we should punish Bush for misconstruing the intelligence on Iraq, allowing Abu Ghraib and pretending there's nothing to be sorry about. Given Kerry's preferable policies on economic and social questions, this is a tempting position. But if you are willing to read the tea leaves on how Bush and Kerry would prosecute the next phase in this war, then Bush comes out better. His gut instincts on terrorism are right -- and Kerry, by assailing the president's foreign policy record at every turn, seems to be saying that those instincts are not his own ones.
Neomie Emory at National Review agreed:
Bush's gut instincts on terrorism are right, as were the instincts of Churchill and Roosevelt about Hitler, and Truman and Reagan about Soviet Russia. All were people who slipped in their time, and are now seen as heroes. And that surely has been no mistake.
This was pretty much the refrain from every mainline Bush supporter. Read the tea leaves. Go with your gut. Bush's instincts are right. Sure, conservatives bristled -- justifiably -- at the continued mainline idea that Bush is dumb in a strictly intellectual sense, and National Review did defend Bush as having shown he could learn from mistakes in its 2004 endorsement. But this idea that Bush is the kind of guy who evolves through observation and deliberatation is a somewhat sharp break with the Bushie myth.
Maybe this is just spin specially designed for that great liberal organ, the New York Times. Or maybe it really is the new spin out of the White House -- Bush the Statesman Thinker. Time will tell.
Speaking to the International Republican Institute, Mr. Bush said the American Revolution had been followed by "years of chaos," and that the first effort to develop a governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, had "failed miserably."
Since my own knowledge of American history doesn't go much beyond "very basic", I won't have crack at this. But this bit of snark from a blogger over at DailyKos is priceless:
"George Bush's analysis is completely correct. Prior to the American 'Revolution', France had blockaded America for over a decade, destroying it's infrastructure in near indiscriminate bombing, encouraged the south to rebel then stood back while the British ruthlessly crushed the rebellion. Then since the colonists were too lazy to revolt themselves against their hated enemy the British, the French invaded the country and drove out the British destroying everything in their path (except things vital to the cotton industry). Then they occupied the country and suspected anyone who spoke English to be a potential terrorist. The first few governments of French appointed ministers failed too, just like in Iraq."
To me, though, the really interesting part of the Times article was this:
Mr. Bush used the speech to continue his gradual reversal from a central commitment of the 2000 presidential campaign: that he would never use the United States military for what he called "nation building."
On Wednesday night, he celebrated the military's nation-building role, saying that while "the main purpose of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists overseas," members of the armed forces are "also undertaking a less visible, but increasingly important task: helping the people of these nations build civil societies from the rubble of oppression."
The article goes on to describe the American military's civilian nation-building exploits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The notion of Bush's "gradual reversal" on nation building conjures up all sorts of images: of a morally and ideologically conflicted Bush, together with his loyal, longserving aides, poring over books and journals and brainstorming late into the night while less burdened American citizens sleep or work the nightshift; meeting with different military analysts and scholars and historians from across the political spectrum to sound out expert opinion; hosting conferences and foreign policy dinners at the White House to encourage robust, raucous debate; consulting regularly with Middle Eastern democrats in exile, world leaders, and even the elected political oppositions in the West, whose support and understanding might someday be needed in nation-building projects; and groping slowly, meticulously, toward an informed, practical, trans-ideological position on the rights, responsibilities and limitations of the US and the West in the international arena, and on the best ethical-achievable course it should take in shaping this maddening, complex, increasingly integrated and interdependent world.
Just as a refresher, here was Bush in the first presidential debate in 2000:
"The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously...If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration."
Bush also said, (albeit referring to tax cuts but in response to a larger question about competing ideologies), that it's not the government's job to determine "right and wrong".
Here he was debating Kerry four years later:
"Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.
That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we'd turn away. But there was fortunately others beside himself who believed that we ought to take action.
We're making progress. But the front on this war is more than just one place. The Philippines -- we've got help -- we're helping them there to bring -- to bring Al Qaida affiliates to justice there. And, of course, Iraq is a central part in the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave. The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.
Much of this response was to Kerry's opening salvo that:
"But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein."
(If it hasn't been remarked upon enough, this was a simply phenominal reversal in the parties' political-ideological positioning, right down to Kerry ticking off the names of generals who supported him and his realism over the other guy's utopianism, something Bush had done in the same debate four years earlier. The only difference was that the Dems had actually nominated a different guy with mostly different advisors. With Bush, it was all part of that "gradual reversal" that, as of today, has him preaching the virtues of "Provincial Reconstruction Teams...helping the Afghan government to fix schools, dig wells, build roads, repair hospitals, and build confidence in the ability of Afghanistan's elected leaders to deliver real change in people's lives" and of "the First Cavalry Division's...Operation Adam Smith - setting up local chambers of commerce, providing Iraqi entrepreneurs with small business loans, and teaching them important skills like accounting, marketing and writing business plans.")
But the real crux of the matter is captured in that "September 10 mentality" comment. Because, frankly, this "gradual reserval" business is pretty new. It certainly wasn't the myth on which Bush's reelection was built. The selling-point for Bush in 2004 wasn't that he deliberates and evolves; it's that he had the ability, the instinct, to change his worldview immediately on September 11, 2001 in response to the new, awesome threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. Afterall, "911 changed everything" -- specifically, it transformed that backslapping libertarian we thought we'd (not quite) elected into the "war president" we really needed -- one who was resolute and singleminded while others debated and doubted and muddled through. As Bush told Bob Woodword in 2003, "I haven't suffered doubt." That was his selling point. It was instinctual -- and religious -- but not intellectual.
That was how Bush's supporters sold it too. The examples are endless. Sabastian Mallaby, endorsing Bush in the Washington Post, while acknowledging the tactical failures of East Asian nation building, concluded this way:
The case for Kerry in this election is the one made, inadvertently, by Novak: We have no idea what either candidate would do next, so we should punish Bush for misconstruing the intelligence on Iraq, allowing Abu Ghraib and pretending there's nothing to be sorry about. Given Kerry's preferable policies on economic and social questions, this is a tempting position. But if you are willing to read the tea leaves on how Bush and Kerry would prosecute the next phase in this war, then Bush comes out better. His gut instincts on terrorism are right -- and Kerry, by assailing the president's foreign policy record at every turn, seems to be saying that those instincts are not his own ones.
Neomie Emory at National Review agreed:
Bush's gut instincts on terrorism are right, as were the instincts of Churchill and Roosevelt about Hitler, and Truman and Reagan about Soviet Russia. All were people who slipped in their time, and are now seen as heroes. And that surely has been no mistake.
This was pretty much the refrain from every mainline Bush supporter. Read the tea leaves. Go with your gut. Bush's instincts are right. Sure, conservatives bristled -- justifiably -- at the continued mainline idea that Bush is dumb in a strictly intellectual sense, and National Review did defend Bush as having shown he could learn from mistakes in its 2004 endorsement. But this idea that Bush is the kind of guy who evolves through observation and deliberatation is a somewhat sharp break with the Bushie myth.
Maybe this is just spin specially designed for that great liberal organ, the New York Times. Or maybe it really is the new spin out of the White House -- Bush the Statesman Thinker. Time will tell.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home