chez Nadezhda :: The Bush Doctrine: dismantling the system of mutual interest

Main Page

Previous:	Faith, religion, identity and non-conformity
Next:	Checking in

The Bush Doctrine: dismantling the system of mutual interest

by nadezhda at 02:35AM (EST) on November 12, 2004 | Permanent Link

This cri de coeur from the editors of the Daily Star in Beirut underlines how the Bush Doctrine has left the post-WWII international order in tatters, in the ways described by John Ikenberry and Andrew Bachevich.

Iraq beyond tragedy: A country gripped in the twin jaws of absurdity

What is happening in Iraq today and that is presently epitomized by the American-led coalition's assault against Fallujah is beyond sad. It is a tragedy, yes, but it goes beyond tragedy: it is an absurdity.

American conduct in Iraq has been characterized by a brutality and blundering that have not even been vaguely disguised by the mask of democracy and by the rhetoric of bringing democracy to that war-shattered country. [...]

However, in Iraq, what are the alternatives? [...]

On the one hand there are the remnants of Saddam's power base and, on the other hand, there are the representatives of a fundamentalist, militant Islamist international. [...]

What program do they offer other than killing? How can anyone support their cause without becoming a killer or without in some implicit way condoning their killing? [...] Quite simply, in the course of trying to oust America from their country, these terrorists and thugs are, in fact, killing Iraq. [...]

It is time for the broader international community to step in and impose the sanity that is necessary to end the absurdity.

Although I have great sympathy for the views expressed above, the call for internationalization is all well and good, but who will lead, and with what will they impose sanity?

The Europeans and Asians, with Russia in the middle, are surely as or more threatened as the US by interminable chaos in Iraq and the spilling over of Islamist radicalism across the Crescent of Instability. But they will not, and as the system stands now, cannot come together to act in the absence of US leadership.

This is the profound hole that the Bush Doctrine has punched in the international order. Without the "indispensable nation," the dynamics of collaboration for broader public goods are simply short-circuited.

Posted to:

Comments

Re: The Bush Doctrine: dismantling the system of mutual interest

by Oscar on Fri 12 Nov 2004 07:11 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

"This is the profound hole that the Bush Doctrine has punched in the international order. Without the "indispensable nation," the dynamics of collaboration for broader public goods are simply short-circuited. "

I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with placing the blame on Bush. The problem is deeper than that. I agree with Nelson Ascher that the indispensibility has gotten out of hand. I liked his (probably valid) point that "The US can survive a nuke in Manhattan. Brazil can survive a nuke in Sao Paulo. But Brazil cannot survive a nuke in Manhattan. What most of the world�s anti-Americans fail to understand is that whatever harms deeply the US harms us even more. Were Africa to suddenly disappear, it wouldn�t make much of a change in the life of New Yorkers. Were NY to disappear, Africa would go along."
This has both good and bad consequences for the US. Bu,t if you agree with him, you probably already see what they are.

Re: The Bush Doctrine: dismantling the system of mutual interest

by nadezhda on Fri 12 Nov 2004 08:23 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

Actually I think a great part of the resentment from other parts of the world is that they in fact "get it" and Americans don't.

There's hardly a place in the world that's immune -- if America sneezes they catch anything from a cold to pneumonia. And they know it, and they can't do anything about it. They can scream at the top of their lungs, and the great American public will be totally unaware they even exist.

From their standpoint, what's worse is that Americans are blithely blind to and ignorant of their effects on others. The operating assumption by all too many Americans (exacerbated by American exceptionalism) is if it's "good for America" it must be good for the world, to the extent they even think about it.

In some parts of the world, when America does act, it hasn't necessarily taken responsibility for cleaning up some of the collateral damage. Case in point Afghanistan, with the irony prak recently pointed to that the same guys who helped create the mujahadeen are being sent back in to clean up the mess. What a portion of America is only starting to figure out is that sometimes what you do -- that seemed a perfectly good idea at the time when viewed through a narrow prism -- will come back to bite you. That doesn't mean you don't act when it will have negative consequences for others, just that you ought to be aware of some of the possible unintended consequences that may follow.

This isn't a matter of "blaming America" or accusing American government, business or society of being a force of evil. It's what the Brooding Persian called the Toms and Daisies -- not malicious, just careless. Or what Graham Greene called the quiet American -- in the tale he tells, wreaking havoc with good intentions.

Wanted to clarify on that first item. I'll be back to you on your point about the Bush Doctrine later.

Thanks for the clarification

by Oscar on Fri 12 Nov 2004 09:19 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

I agree. It is sort of similar to the opening scene in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where Earth gets destroyed by folks who don't even notice, or possibly William Tenn's wonderful novel from 1968 "Of Men and Monsters".

The flip side is that if those portrayals have any sort of accuracy, there is little we can do except hope that the rest of the world manages to catch up - a rather depressing thought :-(

Re: Thanks for the clarification

by nadezhda on Fri 12 Nov 2004 10:39 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

Oh, some of it is simply the nature of the beast. My favorite line from Canada around the time of the elections was that for Canada it's like sleeping in a bed with an insomniac elephant.

But I do think that -- if simply in our own long-term interest -- we would do quite a bit better if we were a tad more self-aware. What we certainly shouldn't be doing -- if nothing else because it is self-defeating is turning into a virtue the overt disregard for how our actions affect others and their opinions of us.

Re: Re: Thanks for the clarification

by praktike on Fri 12 Nov 2004 11:28 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

Well at least rising anti-Americanism hasn't hurt our ability to do business abroad.

Right?

More clarification

by nadezhda on Sat 13 Nov 2004 01:03 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

Part I of Wolcott's screed is also quite good. Emanuel Todd, the French demographer, has an excellent reputation. His opinion is all that "to be or not to be" empire debate is going to be pretty irrelevant fairly soon, at least sooner than any of the debaters could imagine. And that was before Iraq. His tome is on my pile.

May mean the world will need not just a "liberal" Leviathan but will be taking applications for any old Leviathan.

But that's the core to my "how do we approach terrorism" essay that I've been mulling over since July. Do you recall my Sarajevo comment you found so puzzling?

Re: More clarification

by praktike on Sat 13 Nov 2004 12:11 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link

I'm gonna need a refresh on Sarajevo.

Trackbacks

TrackBack URL:
http://cheznadezhda.blogharbor.com/blog/_trackback/181356

No trackbacks found.