Rice takes the wrong lesson away from the ‘axis of evil’

Iraq is deteriorating, Iran is pursuing a nuclear program, and North Korea is defying the world and conducting nuclear tests. Looking at the international landscape, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has come to an interesting conclusion: Bush sure was right.

After discussions of the North Korean nuclear test and the anti-Semitic remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, radio host Sean Hannity asked Rice about the axis [of evil] remark.

“You think of some of the world reaction to the president’s use of the word ‘axis of evil,’ and then you see how events have been unfolding,” Hannity remarked.

“It was a pretty good analysis, wasn’t it?” Rice replied. “It really was.”

This is not at all encouraging. Looking back at the phrase, the lesson Rice should take away from the “axis of evil” isn’t that our rivals are “evil,” but rather that Bush’s foreign policies have created an “axis.”

Slate’s Jacob Weisberg recently explained that the “axis of evil” did not actually exist at the time Bush read the phrase during his 2002 State of the Union address. The White House, he explained, failed to “distinguish clearly among the overlapping security threats presented by rogue states, nuclear proliferators, and supporters of terrorism.” That was in 2002 — now “many of the world’s dictators do now function as a kind of anti-American axis, in a way they didn’t when he made that speech.”

Let’s look back at the members circa 2002. Though they shared an interest in proliferating and were all brutal violators of human rights, the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea posed distinct and very different problems for American foreign policy. Saddam’s Baath fascists in Iraq were shooting at American planes in the no-fly zone and defying the international community over sanctions and inspections. But as we now know, they weren’t major sponsors of terrorism, and were nowhere near building, buying, or giving nukes to others. The theocrats in Iran, on the other hand, had a long history of backing anti-American terrorists and presented a longer-term proliferation threat. North Korea’s Stalinists were stroking their fuel rods, menacing the South as usual, and counterfeiting dollars, but not supporting terrorism. All three regimes were hostile to the United States, but their animosity wasn’t synchronized in any meaningful way.

Now, consider the axis today. Our attacking Iraq prompted Muammar Qaddafi, a Little Brother of Evil, to put up his hands and surrender his nuclear effort. But Iran and North Korea drew from Bush’s idealist invasion the realist lesson that only a nuclear deterrent could preserve them from regime change. Kim, in particular, seems to have taken the point that the American war machine could instantly pulverize his tanks and missiles massed along the DMZ. This meant he needed to accelerate his deterrent efforts by trying out his Pacific-spanning Long Dong missile and cramming for a nuclear test. Bush’s adamant policy of nondiscussion made matters worse, ensuring that neither country would slow down or back away from its atomic rush. He might just as well have announced a prize for the first successful detonation.

But the president’s biggest act of axis-enhancement was tying up our military in Iraq and antagonizing our allies. While the global cop was busy in Baghdad, the world’s other worst villains staged a jailbreak. They understood that Bush couldn’t readily respond to their provocations with force. The opportunity cost of occupying Iraq has also been felt in Syria and Sudan, among the other places where evil has gone unchecked for want of effective American leadership. At another level, our Bush- and Iraq-inspired unpopularity has spurred an informal new post-Cold War anti-American International, with Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and George Galloway running for General Secretary.

Rice looks back with fondness at Bush’s “axis of evil” analysis, patting the president on the back for a phrase well-coined. The reality, however, is that the administration’s foreign policy, shaped in large part by Rice herself, helped create an axis where none existed.

Before Rice takes a victory lap on the president’s behalf, she might want to actually look at the way in which the administration has strengthened our adversaries.

I guess he really is a uniter!

  • Prognostication is easy when you have it within your power to make the prediction come true. Another obvious example: Iraq and al-Queda are linked, just like Bush said. Of course, it wasn’t true the first time he said it, but because he had the power to make it happen, sure enough, he turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground. It may not make good policy, but it sure makes him a great fortune teller.

  • One of the goals of diplomacy is to divide your enemies. Boy George II seems compelled to unite them.

    I suppose that diplomacy would require imagination, which we know Rice lacks. So we get this kind of thoughtless gushing over her bosses clear failures.

    Sad, really sad. Rice’s only accomplishment will, I fear, be to recreate an authoritarian Russian empire so all her education will be useful again.

    It certainly isn’t right now.

  • Was the foreign policy crafted by Bush’s speech writers? Did their flair for propaganda really get in the way of sound policy? And did the “decider” not know the difference between words that help to achieve policy goals and words that really only get in the way? They bragged about creating their own reality and boy did they get it.

  • We will be feeling the results of the incompetence and stupidity of this administration for a generation to come, but, of course, when the chickens come home to roost, it’ll still be Clinton’s fault.

    Meh.

  • Some axis. They didn’t share ideology, weapons, or tactics. It would be hard to find three less-related countries on the planet.

    No one could have possibly forseen how incompetent Bush and his cronies would be.

  • Is this another example of the Bush administration and it’s members to creating their own reality?

  • “You think of some of the world reaction to the president’s use of the word ‘axis of evil,’ and then you see how events have been unfolding,” Hannity remarked.

    “It was a pretty good analysis, wasn’t it?” Rice replied. “It really was.”

    Besides doing push-poll interviewing, Fox also does fill-in-the-blank interviewing. Their questions end with a comma rather than a question mark.

  • It’s not REALLY Bush’s fault that the Axis of Evil hasn’t lived up to their hype.

    I mean, look who we got, a bunch of plain-janes. Kim? Saddam? Mahmoud? Please…

    We needed three guys who look like Lex Luther, Bloefeld, and Destro.

    And where are the henchmen? Evil geniuses need big burly henchmen to throw victims into their devilishly clever traps full of man-eating crocodiles.
    Or to carry out their nefarious deeds across the globe.
    ODDJOB, WHERE ARE YOU????

    And does this Axis of Evil move their Fortress of Doom to Monster Island in the Pacific. NOO!!
    They just stay in the relative safety of their countries. Wusses.

    And sure they give speeches and interviews about standing up to Bush, but not a single one of them hacked into the White House tele-conference screen and issued their demands. C’mon, guys, can’t be that hard. I saw Wargames.

    Jeesh, you give these guys a chance to shine, and they fumble on the handoff. Pathetic.

  • “the administration’s foreign policy, shaped in large part by Rice herself, helped create an axis where none existed.” – CB

    F-ing brilliant conclusion! Bush and his cronies keep creating self-fulfilling prophesies: by attacking other nations, religions or peoples, we seem to create more enemies that don’t like us. More of all kinds of factions think negatively of the US right now , and Bush is right that they may take actions contrary to our interests. But Bush needs to take credit for creating these ill feelingsin the first place. Bush turned up the heat on all kinds of animosities, many that weren’t there or as widespread prior to his coming to office. a great wa to defeat enemies is by not creating them in the first place.

  • Rice’s cluelessness continues to boggle my mind (you’d think I’d be used to it by now). THIS is our Secretary of State? Our top diplomat?
    Holygods.

  • Bush must be the most incompetent fool in the history of man. Everything he does or predicts turns out just the opposite. I know, it you have to wonder whether what he ends up with is what he really wanted all along — but we wonder only because we can’t fathom anyone being so incompetent. He’s a perfect circle of disaster.

  • Also – unless you’re one of the “Israel Uber Alles” bunch, George Galloway in no way belongs in a grouping with Hugo Chavez and Amadinejad. Your unspoken bias in believing that “criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism” is showing, Mr. Weisberg. Another reason why I don’t read you unless some idiot quotes you. (Sorry CB, but the CW that Jacob Weisberg is One Of Us is completely wrong)

  • “It was a pretty good analysis, wasn’t it?” Rice replied. “It really was.”

    Apologies if anyone is offended. Polish has a crude, but apt saying (equal-opportunity offense, gender-wise, before anyone gets more excited than necessary):
    She’s so under-f****ed, it’s affected her brain.

    Remember Harriet Miers, the almost-nominee for the SCOTUS? Same story. Probably a very nice person, but an intellectual lightweight — just the kind Bush likes for “his women” to be.

  • (Sorry CB, but the CW that Jacob Weisberg is One Of Us is completely wrong)

    You’d appear to be quite right, as in:

    “Our attacking Iraq prompted Muammar Qaddafi, a Little Brother of Evil, to put up his hands and surrender his nuclear effort.”

    Meanwhile, in the real-world, Ghaddaffi had been negotiating with the UN and European countries for years over dropping the various dodgy programs his regime had dabbled in over the years in return for the end to sanctions and a way back into the ‘international community’, and the deal was more or less done, with America’s intransigent attitude the only major sticking point.

    But in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, when it was first becoming embarrassingly obvious to even the invasion’s cheerleaders that the UN inspectors had been 100% right about the lack of a WMD arsenal, the White House suddenly changed its tune and gave Ghaddaffi exactly what he wanted in return for him keeping him mouth shut, while the DC Regime’s propagandists furiously span the story to put ‘Middle East’, ‘WMD’ and ‘Success’ alongside each other in the next day’s headlines.

    A much more accurate headline, of course, would have been “Desperate America co-opts ‘Old Europe’s’ diplomatic success and appeases Rogue Arab Dictator – Lockerbie families reminded that you’re either with us, or against us.”

    There’s really no excuse for supposedly intelligent people to still be regurgitating this kind of BS after so long. The next thing we know Weisberg will be reminding us how France forced the US to go outside the United Nations route by threatening to veto any use of force, or how Saddam triggered the invasion by refusing to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.

    Fact-checking, people. It’s not that hard to do, and spares you a lot of blushes.

  • Comments are closed.