More eveidence of the Bush doctrine in action

[nietzsche]

guys, this is exactly what it's all about. Negotiate from a position of strength. These "ties" may be viewed negatively by the press and casual observers, but they are absolutely essential in negotiations; the very negotiations that will coerce governments to police terrorism, prevent future conflicts, and foster reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24581-2005Jan20.html

"President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.

Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well. "

[NYGblue]

well... maybe... this was the belief during the Cold War... Didn't exactly work out that way... you know... I guess it might work in changing these guys, but...... I doubt it.

[zartan]

i'm not sure what your point is, brian... you have stated basically the opposite many times, arguing that negotiating with/propping up dictators is wrong and must stop.

[BizarroCub]

Yep Eric...

Further, I am forced to wonder. Is allowing Putin to slaughter Chechens en masse, or rather specifically not trying to stop him, intentionally not trying to stop him, while he dismantles democracy in his country, worth the potential ally and the so called diplomacy?

[NYGblue]

I think what nietzsche is trying to say is that over the longterm this FP approach could prove to be extremely helpful in molding those countries not doing things the way the US wants them to, to change. Something I abhor completely but is completely a part of the US FP approach since the late 19th century. I don't think many people realize this, but Bush's FP is an aggressive form of Wilsonianism. Yes that comes with a multitude of contradictions but if you look at the overall end goal of Bush's FP and Wilson's FP its one in the same. Which in end... should come as no surprise. There is one goal main goal in US FP, to promote our way of life abroad to be able to sell our superior goods and knowledge abroad. This is about the spread of capitalism to promote the wellbeing of the US.

[zartan]

exactly. brian wrote "the very negotiations that will coerce governments to police terrorism, prevent future conflicts, and foster reform."

please. the negotiations may be effective in getting "terrorists" (definable as broadly or narrowly as is politically expedient) arrested or killed, but don't seem to be helping foster meaningful reform anywhere.

[nietzsche]

i'm not sure what your point is, brian... you have stated basically the opposite many times, arguing that negotiating with/propping up dictators is wrong and must stop.

Ya, I know. and I was wrong. That was before I understood the reality on the ground and the context in which these relationships are forged.

[nietzsche]

exactly. brian wrote "the very negotiations that will coerce governments to police terrorism, prevent future conflicts, and foster reform."

please. the negotiations may be effective in getting "terrorists" (definable as broadly or narrowly as is politically expedient) arrested or killed, but don't seem to be helping foster meaningful reform anywhere.

not yet. but as i have argued all week, we had no military respect from the Arab community until Iraq. Sure, they understood our economic power, and is often helpful in trade issues. But look what that gets them. A big fat bomb up the butt from al-Quaeda (i.e the Saudis).

And that's not true, really. Both Bahrain and Morrocco (admittedly not in our crucial long term strategic interest) have taken steps toward reform.

[nietzsche]

I think what nietzsche is trying to say is that over the longterm this FP approach could prove to be extremely helpful in molding those countries not doing things the way the US wants them to, to change. Something I abhor completely but is completely a part of the US FP approach since the late 19th century. I don't think many people realize this, but Bush's FP is an aggressive form of Wilsonianism. Yes that comes with a multitude of contradictions but if you look at the overall end goal of Bush's FP and Wilson's FP its one in the same. Which in end... should come as no surprise. There is one goal main goal in US FP, to promote our way of life abroad to be able to sell our superior goods and knowledge abroad. This is about the spread of capitalism to promote the wellbeing of the US.


I don't think you mean "promote our way way of life". I don't think anbody left of Ann Coulter wants that. But we do want not tyrranical, oppressive, unrepresentative regimes.

[zartan]

Ya, I know. and I was wrong. That was before I understood the reality on the ground and the context in which these relationships are forged.

your whole theory on the iraq war was grounded in the principle that we can't negotiate with tyrants, wasn't it?

[nietzsche]

your whole theory on the iraq war was grounded in the principle that we can't negotiate with tyrants, wasn't it?

that we couldn't negotiate with Saddam Hussein; that we had tried and failed; that the UN had tried and failed; that it was time to hold him to account for the unwillingness. I don't have a uniform opinion of tyrrants. If Kim Jong Il wants to come to the table, let's roll.

[Chicago]

Wasn't this the same arguement used to explain Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam during the 80's? You're right then, this is strong policy. We should prop up more leaders then strike them down as soon as they develop independant thought and start acting toward their own agendas.

[nietzsche]

Wasn't this the same arguement used to explain Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam during the 80's? You're right then, this is strong policy. We should prop up more leaders then strike them down as soon as they develop independant thought and start acting toward their own agendas.

We "propped up" both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. It's just that we don't have a picture of Rumsfeld with the Shah of Iran.

[Chicago]

We "propped up" both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. It's just that we don't have a picture of Rumsfeld with the Shah of Iran.
Which only proves what political tyranny was going on the last time Republicans held the white house. But this is aside from the point that the reason this was justified was because we were fostering arelationship to engage reform. It's bullshit, it's never worked before and it won't work now. All the little democracies and puppet governments we set up today are tomorrows headaches and terrorist hotbeds. History will be doomed to repeat itself as long as we actively pursue a policy of fucking around with the balances of power in other parts of the world.

[nietzsche]

Which only proves what political tyranny was going on the last time Republicans held the white house. But this is aside from the point that the reason this was justified was because we were fostering arelationship to engage reform. It's bullshit, it's never worked before and it won't work now. All the little democracies and puppet governments we set up today are tomorrows headaches and terrorist hotbeds. History will be doomed to repeat itself as long as we actively pursue a policy of fucking around with the balances of power in other parts of the world.

i don't think our stated goal, public or otherwise, in the 80's was to foster reform. It was to prevent the communists, or any one power really, from gaining an advantage in the region.

[NYGblue]

i don't think our stated goal, public or otherwise, in the 80's was to foster reform. It was to prevent the communists, or any one power really, from gaining an advantage in the region.

Yeah that was the real reason, but the same rhetoric being used today about working with these governments to show them the light or something was used then and didn't work. Most of those governments were left hung out to dry when American public opinion forced the govt. to abandon relations with them. Numerous incidences of just such a thing occurred in my favorite region and Bush is saying the same crap Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, and Eisenhower said about non-democratic regimes during the Cold War... All these things are politically motivated and have nothing to do with changing them into democracies over the longterm. Hell in the 50's Eisenhower expressly stated that it was his mission to bring peace, stability and democracy to the Middle East... LOL!