When liberals (and now perhaps even moderates) complain about the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy, its barely considered news. But when conservatives begin to question his approach? Front page on today's WaPo
| At a moment when his conservative coalition is already under strain over domestic policy, President Bush is facing a new and swiftly building backlash on the right over his handling of foreign affairs.
Conservative intellectuals and commentators who once lauded Bush for what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and advance U.S. interests said in interviews that they perceive timidity and confusion about long-standing problems including Iran and North Korea, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah. "It is Topic A of every single conversation," said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. "I don't have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration." Conservatives complain that the United States is hunkered down in Iraq without enough troops or a strategy to crush the insurgency. They see autocrats in Egypt and Russia cracking down on dissenters with scant comment from Washington, North Korea firing missiles without consequence, and Iran playing for time to develop nuclear weapons while the Bush administration engages in fruitless diplomacy with European allies. They believe that a perception that the administration is weak and without options is emboldening Syria and Iran and the Hezbollah radicals they help sponsor in Lebanon. |
It's odd. I agree with much of their critique, but my reasons are almost the polar opposite of theirs. If you ask me (and since you're reading my blog, I'm going to presume that you did), the reason we're in this mess isn't because we're not aggressive enough. It's because we've been too aggressive.
Imagine, for a moment, a world where we had only invaded Afghanistan, one where we had stayed there to finish the job, simultaneously wrapping up Osama and rebuilding the country, Marshall Plan style. Imagine then the pressure we could bring to bear on Iran and Syria. Imagine then how we might be able to approach North Korea. Imagine then what we might say to Egypt and Russia.
Invading Afghanistan made sense. But Iraq was a blunder of historic proportions. We took what could have been a position of enormous strength and turned it into one of weakness. Rather than chasten our enemies we have emboldened them, trashing our reputation among our friends and allies in the process. So yes, while I agree with much of the substance of their critique, when it comes to underlying causes, I think they've got it all backwards.
UPDATE: More from The Belgravia Dispatch on this topic here
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: MORE CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/23
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment