Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 26, 2002 / 14 Adar, 5762

Bill Schneider

William
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

'Cowboy' or not, Bush has the 'axis of evil' running scared

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com -- A MONTH ago, President Bush uttered three little words, and they caused our allies to take the vapors. The words were not, "I love you."' In his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, Bush condemned Iran, Iraq and North Korea, saying, "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." My goodness, look at the response.

The French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called the president's remarks "simplistic" and "not properly thought through." Chris Patten, a British Conservative and the European Union's external-affairs commissioner, warned that the U.S. success in Afghanistan "reinforced some dangerous instincts ... that the U.S. can rely only on itself, and that allies may be useful as an optional extra."

The German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer complained that "alliance partners are not satellites." Russian President Vladimir V. Putin observed that, among countries whose citizens fought with the Taliban and helped finance the enemy, "Iraq is not on that list."

South Korea erupted in protests during the president's visit last week. Angry politicians complained that Bush was sacrificing Korea to his global strategy. One banner on the streets of Seoul read, "Who is in Axis of Evil? You, Mr. Bush!"

To the allies, Bush's words sounded like cowboy diplomacy. With good reason. A week after Sept. 11, Bush startled the world when he said about Osama bin Laden: "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" On Feb. 8, Bush addressed a roomful of cowboys at the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. meeting in Denver. The president said to a forest of 10-gallon hats, "Either you're with us, or you're against us." On his way to the Far East last weekend, he told U.S. troops in Alaska, "I view this current conflict as either us versus them [or] evil versus good. And there is no in between." It's the black hats and the white hats--just like in the cowboy movies.

Bush is not the first cowboy president. Ronald Reagan was also fond of 10-gallon hats. Remember when Reagan threatened tax raisers by saying, "Go ahead--make my day"? That's cowboy talk, even if the line came from "Dirty Harry," Clint Eastwood's urban vigilante movie.

During Reagan's first year in office, his tough talk and military build-up frightened so many people that a spontaneous nuclear-freeze movement broke out all over Europe. The allies were shocked by Reagan's "evil empire" speech to the British House of Commons in mid-1982, when he denounced the Soviet Union as a tyranny, relegated Marxism-Leninism to "the ash heap of history" and asked, "Must freedom wither--in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?"

Reagan's policy was, "Talk tough, and carry a big stick." In the end, it worked. The evil empire crumbled. Europeans scoffed in 1987, when Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" But two years later, the wall came down.

Bush's policy is the same as Reagan's--tough talk and a huge military build-up. He does not share former President Bill Clinton's ambitions. Clinton wanted to be known as a peacemaker. Bush is a war leader, a self-described "crusader for justice" against evil and tyranny. "Our cause is just, our cause is noble, and we will defeat the forces of terror," the president told the troops in Alaska.

Clinton was loved and admired overseas. Reagan was respected abroad, but not especially loved or admired. Bush is a Reaganite, not a Clintonian, by temperament. He has no need to bask in the love and admiration of people around the world. But he does want to be respected. Which means his policies have to meet the same test as Reagan's: They have to work.

Critics argue that Bush's cowboy rhetoric is counterproductive. It undermines reformist forces in countries like Iran. When the U.S. denounces their country as "evil," moderates have no choice but to join the hard-liners in denouncing the U.S. They cannot risk being seen as pro-American. But that's all theatrics, the president's supporters would argue. What matters are the realities: the tyranny and corruption of their regimes, and the steadfastness of U.S. opposition.

U.S. allies understand the military realities. The primary reality being: The U.S. doesn't need them. Afghanistan proved that the U.S. is perfectly capable of fighting this war on its own--militarily. But the U.S. does need the cooperation of allies in two other, equally crucial areas--intelligence and financial sanctions. The U.S. cannot get information about terrorist networks or cut off their financing without the cooperation of other countries. Will Bush's blunt rhetoric cause our allies to go their own way?

Here, too, the Bush administration claims the realities are on our side. The allies are just as threatened by terrorists as we are. They are closer to the Middle East and have larger Muslim populations. Are they going to refuse to cooperate with the U.S. when the reality is, we're all in this together?

In some ways, Bush's tough policy appears to be working. The Iranians have been arresting suspected terrorists. The Iraqis have issued statements saying they are not interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. ("I've heard that before," U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said. "We've heard it for 10 years.") The North Koreans are promising to keep their agreements with respect to missile development. Our enemies are all acting scared.

So are our allies. They're complaining about Bush's return to a policy of "unilateralism." What makes them think the U.S. is ready to go it alone? "The United States, and only the United States, can see this effort through to victory," Vice President Dick Cheney said Feb. 15.

Well, OK. But wait. Powell can explain. Sure, Bush talks tough. "What the president said is, 'I'm calling it the way it is,'" Powell observed last week. "He did it in a very straightforward, direct, realistic way that tends to, you know, jangle people's nerves." You bet.

On the other hand, the president's actions--to use his father's favorite word--tend to be "prudent." Powell added, "Once they settle down and understand that he is going about this in a prudent, disciplined, determined way, they realize that's what leadership is about." Bush was extremely cautious and methodical in Afghanistan. He resisted a lot of pressure to take impulsive military action after Sept. 11.

"I can assure you, he has taken no decision about the use of force against Iraq," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said last week. Powell acknowledged, "With respect to Iran, some good things have been happening there." Bush himself elaborated his policy concerning North Korea. "We're a peaceful people," he said in Panmunjom last week. "We have no intention of invading North Korea. South Korea has no intention of attacking North Korea." So, Powell asks a pertinent question: "What unilateral action have we taken that is causing them to get so upset?"

Talk tough, and carry a big stick. But act with prudence. It's Reagan diplomacy with a Bush twist--and it's producing results. Just right for an Ivy League cowboy.

To comment on JWR contributor William Schneider's column, please click here.


02/20/02: Could it be that the era of Big Government really is over?
01/31/02: 'Daddy issues' grab center stage
01/15/02: And, they're off …
01/09/02: Three 'War Stars' are born
01/04/02: California cluelessness?
12/17/01: Congress' life or death issue
11/27/01: Our reinvigorated spendthrift Congress
11/27/01: Out of War, Peace?
11/14/01: The other war --- the one for public opinion
11/09/01: The mayor of New Yawk and the King of the World
11/07/01: An insurance policy on America
11/02/01: A nation of defiant optimists
10/30/01: Has Bush has flip-flopped on 'nation-building'?
10/23/01: The new political world
10/16/01: The return of big government
10/08/01: On political war
10/01/01: The "born-again" president
09/25/01: Making America squirm
09/14/01: The American spirit will not wane
09/10/01: What Dubya knows about the budget
08/13/01: Japan becomes the latest country to see its politics become personalized
08/09/01: Bush backers out to remake prez yet again
07/30/01: Will the GOP's mandate of 1994 finally runs out?
07/23/01: Both political parties are full of ....
07/16/01: Empowered moderate Republicans
07/09/01: As goes New Jersey, so goes the nation?
07/02/01: Dubya: Like father, like son?
06/15/01: The new soccer moms
06/05/01: Deals or deadlock?
05/29/01: The War Between the States is heating up again
05/21/01: The answer is men
05/10/01: Bush v. Carter?

Up

© 2002, William Schneider