Bush's big-stick folly

[dragon wench]

Thought I would share this.....


Bush's big-stick folly



By PAUL KNOX: from Canada's National Paper, The Globe and Mail


The roots of George W. Bush's first-strike folly go back a century, to another Republican who had a talent for marrying foreign policy and water-cooler wisdom. Theodore Roosevelt led his country to world-power status, first as a cavalry commander and then as its 26th president. It was he who advised the United States to speak softly in global councils, and carry a big stick.

Seeking to end the influence of Europe in Latin America, Roosevelt claimed for the United States the right to regulate the Western Hemisphere unilaterally. It was to assume the duty of maintaining order throughout the Americas, and intervene in the affairs of Latin American states to ensure they stayed in line. In return, Washington expected the rest of the world to butt out.

Roosevelt's dictates vastly expanded the Monroe Doctrine, set out by an earlier president in 1823. These principles, together with the Cold War doctrine of containment, eventually led the United States down a sinister path. Its occupations and proxy administrations of Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic lasted for years. Later, combining the Monroe Doctrine with the Cold War principle of containment, it condoned and, in some cases, helped engineer the overthrow of elected governments. It trained armies that not only put down insurrections but brutally suppressed popular movements.

One way to read the National Security Strategy that Mr. Bush unveiled last week is as a Monroe Doctrine for the entire planet. It proposes explicitly to maintain overwhelming military supremacy around the globe. It asserts the right to intervene wherever it declares that a threat of terrorism or mass destruction exists.

But the Bush document is much more than a justification of pre-emptive action. It is an evangelical tract, a manifesto for the implementation of the American way on a global scale. It contains strong overtones of the French mission civilisatrice, according to which superior civilizations had a duty to spread the lessons of success around the globe.

There is, Mr. Bush says, "a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise." He declares that "economic freedom is the only source of national wealth." He vows to use "this moment of opportunity . . . to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world."

Many Americans in many countries work sincerely to make such things come true. But they are not the only ones who do so, and U.S.-style democracy is not the only kind worthy of support. Moreover, the history of the last century suggests that the United States cannot always be counted on to act for the common global good.

Powerful as they are, U.S. presidents operate under domestic political constraints. For every Woodrow Wilson preaching self-interested internationalism, there's a Jesse Helms obstructing the United Nations. For every Franklin Roosevelt smoothing the waters with a Good Neighbour policy, there's an Oliver North working to subvert the democratic process.

The mantra of "economic freedom" is similarly unconvincing. First of all, certain restrictions on free enterprise are demonstrably compatible with economic growth, and sustainable over decades when sanctioned by voters in free elections. Second, in U.S. practice, "free trade" means trade on U.S. terms. It means forcing its way into markets for services, cultural products and government procurement. It means protectionism for domestic U.S. industries with political clout.

Finally, U.S. support for democracy all too often translates as support for favourable outcomes rather than free choice itself. Just this year, for example, the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia threatened a cutoff of aid -- not because of weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or the overthrow of democracy, but because voters in a functioning democracy looked like they might choose the wrong guy. (He leads a union of growers of coca plants; the envoy all but accused him of being in league with drug traffickers.) The Bush administration didn't much care for the German people's democratic verdict this week, either, and has plunged Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder into the diplomatic deep freeze.

Whatever the morality of the Monroe Doctrine, there was logic to its pretensions. By the early 20th century, only the U.S. was able to project without difficulty the military force required to dominate the Americas. Difficult as it might be for Latin Americans to admit, there was a cultural logic to U.S. overlordship, too. The New World republics shared an anti-colonial history, as well as one of brutal treatment of native Americans and African slaves. Christianity was dominant throughout the hemisphere. The prosperous U.S. economy was increasingly capable of supplanting Europe as a market for Latin American commodities.

The Bush manifesto rests on spongier foundations. It pays only lip service to the complexity -- and fragility -- of the world economy. One of its goals is to wire a world of six billion in order to detect and destroy a few thousand. Another is to create the impression of force so varied and overwhelming as to deter the most determined megalomaniac. As much as dominance, the operating principle is global micromanagement.

Yet micromanaging Osama bin Laden has hardly been easy, and there is stiff resistance both at home and abroad to even one first-strike foray -- pre-emptive action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Who can be certain that the Bush doctrine will prove as enduring as the ills it purports to address?

[Chanak]

Yep, I edited my original post. I'll stick to William Shatner and Punk bands.

[Mr Sleep]

Cheers DW, very interesting.

I have noticed a few of these Canadian reports pop up and it is good to hear a differing perspective than the Bush led media from the US and UK.

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Cheers DW, very interesting.

I have noticed a few of these Canadian reports pop up and it is good to hear a differing perspective than the Bush led media from the US and UK.

Canada's PM has taken a very different approach to the whole situation....one more in step with the European governments..... I think this might be part of the reason that the Canadian media gives the perspective it does. Indeed, while there are some exceptions, these views generally echo the sentiments of the country as a whole....

[Gruntboy]

I can't understand the contradictions.

Nobody in the UK seems to want this war - the people (those ignorami of "public opinion"), parliament, press, whoever - yet Tony Blair supports Bush and we have "Bush led media from the US and UK" and there is "stiff resistance both at home and abroad".

People need to make up their minds. They cannot decry a policy whilst claiming those wh shore it up, don't?

The real politiking here is from those who revel in poking the US in the eye. Why oppose Bush? Because there is an opportunity to do so, in their interest. I call that taking advantage of a horrific crime.

When they come for you, will anyone raise their voice?

[RandomThug]

When they read an article Pro Bush, Pro War, Pro US tactics they cry out "Its propanda, its just the media spin.."

But when the complete oppisite, see often "As worse", is proposed (Something that co-aligns slightly with thier own perspectives) they read it as if it was truth.

It's media. Its spin. He claims that we haven't been known to have the best interest for the world....

Moreover, the history of the last century suggests that the United States cannot always be counted on to act for the common global good.

Now in the last century I believe it has been shown we have had a little to do with making the world a better place... I mean do I need to comment, list the facts there? I mean who gets off saying that our new president who may or may not be the best (who happens to have been thrown HORRIBLY into a situation no chancelor of canada has ever had to face) may be making a few mistakes, and then turn that into the last century we have been misguided in our ways...

I am not saying the writer is 100% right or wrong, my personal opinion of Bush is changing every day.

But the fact of the matter is they cant take an article like that and say it holds ground when they turn thier heads 180 when they see a PRO article.

That article was slightly interesting if not annoying for its innacuracy. I do take with great disgust the ease it takes for other countries to point fingers, it isn't easy being in our shoes. It isn't easy having the rest of the WHOLE WORLD staring and watching and waiting.

America does its damned best, and while others may or may not like our decisions... (both in and out of the US because I definitly dont agree with a good bunch of whats going on too) have to understand that it's never going to be simple or easy.

Whoever is on top, will be a horrible target for disdain.

If it wasn't Iraq it would be our efforts in south america, if it wasn't that it would be our economy, if it wasn;t that it would be the moral ethics of our pres, if it wasn't that it would be the level of crime in the US, if it wasn....

I cant say stop looking for our flaws, finding them is what makes us stronger. Im just saying stop, relax... and relize that yes the Media is a whore and no matter where or what it is for or against, hold it with a grain of salt.


As they say "Its not in the papers, its on the walls".

THUG

[Mr Sleep]

Having two opinions to work from is surely not such a bad thing, so one person has a derisory word to say is, is that so destructive? As far as I am concerned it merely gives the reader a different perspective to form their opinions from.

It is the problem behind any monopoly, once there is no other contributing factor then the company/goverment in question can basically make anything up and the people have nothing else to base their opinions on (apart from personal moral worth, which is dubious at best with some folk) to conflict with what is rammed down their throats.

I have said I respected Bush for his activities and I still do, I also respect Blair for actually showing some spine, what I don't get is why there can't be a dividing line where the populous have a right to chose, the people of the UK say they don't want a war on Iraq so why is it that we are still mobilising, the people who put Blair in government are being ignored, is that democracy? <edit> I can't categorise this as fact, the last I heard it was suggested that the UK population didn't want to, however I have checked a few news sources and they are mostly divided over the issue.

Grunt, what was the last piece of writing or news broadcast you read that said it as it is and wasn't spin, pro this one or pro that one, merely the facts as they stood.

Two words about everything I read, be it that article or any other pro/against arguement and those are snake oil.

[RandomThug]

I find opposing points of view very interesting, its just when they come off to be insulting my own views without credible proof. For instance in the last couple month's I have gone from a Crazy scare the crap outa the foreigner pro american war crazy kid to a wary "why is bush doing this" American. I am still Pro the current situatiuon, but I am more questionable as well.

The monopoloys who are on top have the benifit of making/changing rules but unlike the smaller companies (countries) they have to deal with the entire world thier hands touch. Which makes everything more complicated and intricit.

I also responded mostly because I have come across many forums from many of different posts that work two ways. A post with a PRO American statement,article, cover story etc. is viewed 90% BS and everyone makes a simular comment about the validity and horrific crime of Propaganda in the US.

But when someone posts a viewpoint Anti america the common sense is to believe it, to take it at full value and accept it.

Snake Oil.

[Gruntboy]

Sleep, I don't remember reading an arcticle or watching the news for a long time where the "news" was presented - just the facts (not taking one side or another). Its all opinion and it all stinks.

I can make my own mind up - I just need the facts. I don't need some columnist to tell me what to think - one way or another!

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by RandomThug
I find opposing points of view very interesting, its just when they come off to be insulting my own views without credible proof. For instance in the last couple month's I have gone from a Crazy scare the crap outa the foreigner pro american war crazy kid to a wary "why is bush doing this" American. I am still Pro the current situatiuon, but I am more questionable as well.

You reacted much the same as everyone else, I recall the media, my friends and GB all came around from an "Al Queda must die" ideal to "Why must Al Queda die" ideal, it is only natural, at first there is the shock, then mourning, some chose mourning in different fashions. Then there was retribution, then there were the question about why the retribution happened. I personally see no problem from my standpoint with the way things went down post 9/11, but then I was not one of the people directly affected by 9/11 or an innocent Afghan getting massacred. I will put it this way, a fairly cold and harsh way, a lot worse things could have happened, a great deal worse for every person on the planet.

The monopoloys who are on top have the benifit of making/changing rules but unlike the smaller companies (countries) they have to deal with the entire world thier hands touch. Which makes everything more complicated and intricit.

They also have to set an example, something monopolies don't do particularly well if Microsoft are anything to go by

I also responded mostly because I have come across many forums from many of different posts that work two ways. A post with a PRO American statement,article, cover story etc. is viewed 90% BS and everyone makes a simular comment about the validity and horrific crime of Propaganda in the US.

Well I hear BS from both sides, the main thing I am getting at the moment from the press is everyone is kind of grinding the whole thing out in bureuacracy, which is the worst thing to happen in my opinion.

But when someone posts a viewpoint Anti america the common sense is to believe it, to take it at full value and accept it.

Do you mean common sense or common approach, common sense would be to keep neutrality, not a very easy suggestion when it's peoples lives on the line. Hell at this point it's the world on the line, with Saddam getting plutonium etc :-/

On a completely unrelated note, I actually saw Boondock Saints the other night, a very cool film, with an intruiging performance from Billy Connely

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Sleep, I don't remember reading an arcticle or watching the news for a long time where the "news" was presented - just the facts (not taking one side or another). Its all opinion and it all stinks.

My point exactly, the facts of both sides are clouded by other motivations, it is up to individuals to make those choices. I wonder however if some people aren't fit for those choices?

I can make my own mind up - I just need the facts. I don't need some columnist to tell me what to think - one way or another!

I wonder sometimes what the point of newspapers are, they seem to be 80% opinion and 20% fact and most of that fact can be found from Dilbert. I actually had this conversation a few months back with my dad, we basically agreed that with everything in a paper you get opinions about everything for no real reason.

Apparently the best paper to read is the Sun because you know it's all crap and at least one can appreciate it for the BS it is - Well that is my dads opinion anyway

[Gruntboy]

And you can grap a quick look at the norks on page 3.

Agreed.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
And you can grap a quick look at the norks on page 3.

Well he didn't exactly put it like that...

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Gruntboy


The real politiking here is from those who revel in poking the US in the eye. Why oppose Bush? Because there is an opportunity to do so, in their interest. I call that taking advantage of a horrific crime.

As with the German election...something I believe the German people have the right to do.....but remember there will be a cost for every action.



"Not on my watch - no German involvement in a war with Iraq, whatever the UN may say."

[RandomThug]

common approach... my bad hehe...


Definitly a great Movie eh? Thier in the process of filming a sequel which intrigues and scares me.

Everyone else looking onto this thread, go see the movie.

Thug