Figures. We publish our Iraq Report yesterday, and suddenly there's just a deluge of great Iraq stuff out there. We'll round it all up Monday, never fear.
Meanwhile, Bush's words at the National Endowment for Democracy are correctly seen as an important public acknowledgement of a policy that firmly aims to shatter the Middle Eastern status quo. The USA's public aim is to transform the Middle East by transforming the way it is governed, and Bush's speech explains both the policy and the thinking behind it. Armed Liberal may finally be getting his wish:
* Oxblog's Patrick Belton has a link to the speech, plus multiple excerpts. As you might expect from his status as a founding member of the Oxford Democracy Forum (Oxdem), he's very happy with this speech.
* P. has President George W. Bush as his guest blogger today. We've had some good ones at Winds of Change.NET, but how do you top that?
* The Arabic translation of the speech. To which I add: Insh'allah.
* Boomshock has the best roundup of reactions to the speech that I've yet seen, plus some thoughts of his own. Worthwhile, as usual.
* Instapundit has a partial roundup of reactions from the center-right, with broad agreement that this was a major speech. Drezner in particular understands where Iraq fits in, quoting Clinton-era NSC staffer Pollack to make his key point.
* Totten: "In other words, he's pitching the Kissinger doctrine over the side. “Stability,” “our bastards,” and the rest of the old right ideology is finished. We cannot and will not liberate every oppressed population at once. But we'll do what we can when we are able... 'Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others'."
* I wonder why the media didn't pay more attention to the speech. Mind you, the European media did pay attention - they just didn't get it right. As we've come to expect from their parallel universe.
* Donald Sensing puts it all in context with an Oct. 29th post called "The Big Picture." It delivers on its title in every way.
The speech certainly throws down the gauntlet to many of the tyrannies in the region, and the implications of stating these aims so publicly are significant - consider the impact in Egypt, Syria, and Saudia Arabia, for instance, not to mention Iran. Consider, too, the speech's timing, which may be the only real surprise to people who've been paying attention. Now what we need is some execution.
I had Anthony Blair earlier, too. {*_+}
Now, if only we could get copies of the Arabic version distributed on the streets of Cairo ...
For so long now, people are saying "Bush needs to tell us this" or "Bush needs to tell us that." The maddening thing has been the irregular timing of his speeches. But there is usually major substance in them...something to chew on for a while.
To those that say Bush still hasn't told us why we're in Iraq, one possible reply is that he constantly tells us. Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't mean he isn't telling you. shrug Guess I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...
I have a response here where I argue that Bush's vision for the Middle East is a liberal and not a conservative one. (Sorry for the link-whoring, but Joe does seem to want to know when I weigh in on this stuff.)
After reading AL's post, I have to agree with him. Bush needed to make this speech, in fact he needs to make several more of them, explaining more clearly why this was all necessary. The majority of American's aren't as aware as Trent or Den Beste. They don't understand enough foreign policy to figure things like this out for themselves. And many sitll haven't realized what the media has been doing with the truth lately. There are plenty of people who don't support the war now who could be convinced otherwise, as they aren't LLL's, and woul like that America is into the "protectin liberty" things again.
Thank you for the link!
Donald: thank you for the article!
Michael T: yes, I do want to know. Thanks.
Thanks, Joe.
Well, I've bitched enough about Bush not putting things in perspective that there's no way I can do anything but be happy about the speech. It's about 10 months late, but that's OK; we're gonna be at this for a while.
It's the right commitment.
A.L.
>Sorry for the link-whoring,...
Don't be.
We are all fighting for Google rankings here. ;-)
I suspect that the issue of troops in Iraq will still be around for the '08 election, although their use will likely be a bit different than it is now...
So is Bush a Woodrow Wilson all of a sudden?
If you're right in your assessment, AL, then I hope we're going to roll out an impressive display of soft power.
And he's going to have to be willing
to accept Islamic democracies, whether they align themselves with the United States or not.
Call me cynical, but Iran and the Palestinians are much more democratic than Saudi Arabia.
I think Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kristol firmly believe that America should spread democracy in the Middle East. I'm not so sure about Cheney. I see some interesting months ahead of us.
Personally, I see this speech as an attempt to talk Wilson and act Kissinger. The jury's out.
I'd love to see Anne Applebaum reprise her "parallel universe" article in light of this speech.... I just find it amazing that its impact was felt immediately throughout the blogosphere. You just had to know that it was momentous, because everybody seemed to be saying so all at once.
Some interesting little touches:
(1) celebrating the noble cause:
In . . . the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam . . . Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.
[Fair-weather interventionists, rack off!]
(2) bracketing Syria with Iraq:
Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.
[I'd rather frighten the Syrians than reassure my own fence-sitters.]
(3) blaming the Palestinians:
. . . the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.
[No, I'm not going to pressure Sharon, and I'm not going to pretend to either.]
And an interesting large absence:
(4) absolutely no new substantive commitment:
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.
[And if you expect one word on the specifics on that new policy and strategy today, you'll be disappointed. No content for you today! Hope you enjoyed the rhetoric.]
And why should Sharon be pressured? Pressured to do what?
It's always amused me that the PLO and PA wants the Israelis "restrained". They are self-restraining, just as Europe and the U.S. are. If they weren't, there would be no Palestinians left to complain. What the PA wants is for Israel to be restrained from fighting back at all.
Now back to the topic at hand.
I didn't see Bush's speech, but the excerpts I've read are what I've wanted to hear for a long time. Clinton should have said it in 1992. If Congress and the White House had cleaned up the messes left over from the cold war (instead of arguing over a nonexistent "peace dividend"), we would be in different shape now. As for European seething and whining, if Clinton had made exactly the same speech, they would be falling at his feet, calling him the Messiah.
The major problem I see with implementation is with the State, CIA, and Pentagon bureacracies. They simply like "stability" (the stability of a graveyard) and "peace" (the peace of the graveyard) too much, and will obstruct anything they don't like. In addition, State particularly values the quiet life, doesn't like to rock the boat, and just loves to be predictible. After all, Bush will be out of office by 2008 at the latest, and State and CIA just have to hold out until the next president. It's a difficult problem, particularly with State. Here, the disadvantages of the merit civil service system are hurting us, but I don't want to go back to the old way of patronage for all civil service positions.
The Pentagon is a problem of a different kind. A forceful hand at the help, like-minded assistant and associate secretaries, and promoting innovative commanders over the heads of ticket-punchers (a la FDR and George Marshall) will get the job done a bit more easily than with State and the CIA. But there is a job to do here also, and it requires day-to-day attention and focus.
There has to be a way to clean house, and make State and CIA see that they represent the U.S. to other countries, not the other way around. And the CIA simply has to take more risks - please send more Robert Baer-types to recruit agents. After all, it was the CIA who said Americans would not be able to get with Al-Quaida (sic), but John Lindh managed to do it, and so did Jose Padillo, and so did others. Why not CIA operatives?
In addition, Congress has to understand that carping about the CIA just reinforces the current lack of initiative. Complaining that the CIA isn't taking appropriate risks, and then complaining when they do is simply not working. The only way this will happen is with pressure from the voters. I, for one, am preparing some letters to my Senators (NY) on this and other topics.
The practice of former diplomats and SES officials working as agents of a foreign power simply has to stop. I don't like doing that, as I'm opposed to coercion, but it's become a security problem.
The grass roots effort has to be with education and an increase in foreign travel. This has to come from parents putting pressure on school districts to cut the bloated central office staff and get serious about language instruction. We simply must have instruction in languages other than French, German, and Spanish.
Dale:
And why should Sharon be pressured? Pressured to do what?
Some people think he should be pressured to stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and to enclose less West Bank land inside the Separation Fence. Some of those people are also open to supporting the Iraq occupation. I thought it interesting that in a speech people were looking to from both sides of politics, Bush chose the conviction politics not the big tent approach.
USA President Bush is so concern with democratic idealism that he may have forgotten his God's grant unique freedom to the human race and nations. He must have been the one who vetoed when God placed Adam on earth to be his vicegerent.
USA has done and placed democratic ideals in such countries like the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan its stauch allies in the Pacific region. So possibly, Prez Bush may have to start with his staunch allies in the Middles East, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, UAE, as USA may have influenced Turkey to its democratic ideals. Kudos to Bush for his democratic cross aid.
It is real nice to know democratic ideals to equity it with human justice and equity. Maybe Prez Bush too should start thinking of changing the African continent and fight communist and totalitarian regimes and warlords to free what God had created good - the human race. Recruit, train liberation movement that would fought for USA democratic ideals. Provide moral support, logistics and arms to those who embrace US style democratic systems, train their young leaders in USA so the African continent would one day be a freer world for US commerce and industry that may provide food for the hungry.