FT: How Bush can fix his policy failures

[maddezmom]

By Strobe Talbott

Published: December 18 2006 21:53 | Last updated: December 18 2006 21:53

The US faces in Iraq what could be the most consequential foreign-policy debacle in its history. The only other contender for that distinction is the war in Vietnam. But Vietnam was a unitary state that had been artificially – and therefore temporarily – divided, while Iraq was an artificially united state that perhaps has now been permanently divided. Moreover, Iraq, unlike Vietnam, is surrounded by dominoes.

The origins of the looming catastrophe in and around Iraq go back to the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency. In his first nine months in office, the administration virtually suspended diplomacy in the Middle East and weakened or nullified a range of multilateral agreements.

The result was mounting resentment around the world over US disregard for international law, institutions, treaties and alliances.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the administration squandered an instantaneous, international outpouring of goodwill. It rejected an unprecedented offer from Nato to deploy troops alongside US forces in Afghanistan and used the 9/11 attacks on the US as a pretext for attacking Iraq, in part by “connecting the dots” between Afghan-based terrorism and Iraqi totalitarianism, even though the two phenomena were separate and hostile to each other. The Iraq invasion was the high-water mark of Bush unilateralism and the low-water mark of America’s standing in the world’s eyes.

In the months and years ahead, the US will need maximum participation and trust from the international community, especially for the “diplomatic offensive” recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Study Group on Iraq. That will require not just a new approach to Iraq but an overhaul of US foreign policy. Yet the reluctance with which Mr Bush gave up on his effort to keep John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations suggests either that he does not understand the extent to which Mr Bolton personified the administration’s contempt for the world body – or, worse, does not care.

more:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ed5f413a-8ec1-11db-a7b2-0000779e2340.html

[luckyleftyme2]

1. SAD BUT FAIRLY ACCURATE

It seems that a little of both is the answer.IF he understands diplomacy he doesn't know how to apply it;or just doesn't care.
This is a trait often found in people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouths.You can send them to the best schools,teach them manners etc. but if you fail to teach them the meaning of NO and respect for others they fail to understand responsibility!
One thing for sure is he's got this country in a heck of a pickle.And a change of the guard is our only hope.

[opihimoimoi]

2. POS Bush don't know CRAP....Serial Bully with Narcissistic signs...he plows on

Blindly and unilaterally...isolating America from Reality/Sanity....

Watch his speeches and see his brainwashing BS...

Hey there Bushie...it ain't working no mo....

[izzie]

3. The philosophy of the people in power will not let it get fixed.

I think that their thinking has just got lost in the age we live in. As the people them self more and more rule them self the philosophy of rule by a few at the top dies out. It is just how things work. It may be slow but it is all out their and is coming to all.

[necso]

4. "Surely, if there is anything

Mr Bush wants more than to stick by his guns, it is to avoid having his presidency end in unprecedented failure."

One of the powers of perspective is that one can insist-upon, hold-to, wallow-in, and savor one's way of looking at things, no matter how much contrary evidence exists -- or how widely others see it (very) differently. Of course, there can be consequences for such egotism, unrealism, and pig-headedness; but what consequences will w ever suffer*? -- The disapproval of people he has nothing but contempt for (which is just about everybody who isn't on his side -- and quite a few of those who are)?

That is, if w sees himself as a success (an unyielding "tough"-guy; whatever), then to himself he is a success (whatever). And if this is reinforced by a bunch of self-serving toadies (if would be believable that some of these are actually enemy agents, attempting to exploit w's ego to bring about our downfall), what else does a self-absorbed egotist need to maintain his desired illusions (outside of physical needs: needs that in w's case will be taken care of -- extremely well taken care of -- for the rest of his life)?

w isn't going to "break" from his imagined-and-desired, self-"perceived" "character**", no matter how much the old power-establishment -- or anyone else -- politely pressures or pleads.

Neocons only "respect" (that is, "fear"; they actually have no concept of respect) power. And those who could bring crushing power (impeachment, conviction, criminal trial) on w are extremely unlikely to do so. (Lest this be taken as a condemnation of Democrats, republican congressmen are almost entirely a collection of craven cowards (and traitors), who tremble at the mere whisper of rove's name -- and they are unlikely to support removing w no matter what he does -- a circumstance of which w is well aware.)

...

The old republican power-establishment*** either welcomed or did little to stem the rise of the neocons (the neocons successfully played the suckers in ways the establishment couldn't, wouldn't, didn't -- or thought beneath them). And I would relish seeing these fellow-travelers fall alongside the neocons; because they all have it coming -- they all have it coming in spades. (Rhetorically speaking, of course; now is not the time for extra-Constitutional or extra-legal acts.)

(It's sad that others will suffer for neocon crimes and blunders. But such is life. If you can't differentiate between gold and glitter, then most likely you're headed for the shitter. And as a people, we used to understand such things -- or at least aspire to.)

...

*: There will continue to be plenty of people who will kiss his ass, hang on his every word, idolatrize him, etc, for the rest of his life. He just has to make a point of not associating with people who will treat him like the criminal scum that he is; which is easy enough for the rich and powerful -- much less for an expresident -- in most cases.)

**: Here, how one perceives oneself, as opposed to how one really is. It's common for people (certain types of people, especially the extremely egotistical) to put the best possible "self-image" and public "face" (here: postures, asserted characters) on who they are. (And it's common for other types of people to think too little, not too much, of themselves; balance and accurate perception are especially difficult in this area.)

***: The Democratic, "left", and other power-establishment types just had no effing clue how to deal with the neocons -- and largely they still don't.