The soft bigotry of low expectations

Value judgments aside, it’s fair to say the Bush administration is not without lofty foreign policy ambitions. Sure, those ambitions may not be grounded in reality. And sure, the likelihood that the president will actually reach his goals is very small. But at least these guys have decided to aim high.

Indeed, as of a month ago, administration officials thought that Bush might be able to succeed in Iraq, strike a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, keep Iran in check, and rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. Once those items had been crossed off the to-do list, it would give the administration “claims on success that would significantly improve their historical reputations.”

First, the ambitions seemed a little too far-fetched to be taken seriously. As Yglesias noted, “By the same token, if earth’s yellow sun gave me the powers of a kryptonian, I’d be a super hero. If my blog had Engadget’s traffic, I’d be the most popular political blogger. If George Bush could breath underwater, he’d be a fish.”

Second, it appears that the administration now realizes that, with just one year remaining, it’s not going to have any real success stories anyway.

The Bush administration is beginning its last year in office by quietly scaling back its foreign policy ambitions as it struggles with new obstacles and rapidly dwindling influence.

Only a few months ago, senior officials predicted that before their exit, they could deliver the Middle East peace deal that had eluded so many predecessors. But this month, as President Bush toured Israel and the West Bank, officials made it clear that the deal he’s now talking about is not a long-awaited final agreement, but a preliminary pact to set the terms for talks.

In addition, the administration’s efforts to get North Korea and Iran to end their nuclear programs have suffered deflating setbacks in recent weeks. And although the administration’s greatest foreign policy undertaking, Iraq, has seen encouraging security improvements, the goal of Iraqi political reconciliation remains distant.

While the Bush administration will apparently stop trying to achieve key milestones, the encouraging news is that it will also direct its attention to “tidying up messes” it helped to create in recent years.

When speaking in public these days about the administration’s record, officials talk little about diplomatic breakthroughs, and more about laying sound foundations for those who will come after them. That shift reflects how little time Bush has left and how much work remains.

“It’s becoming clear that they’re not going to be able to achieve that much in the time that remains, and they’re simply having to adjust their ambitions,” said Gary Samore, a nonproliferation expert who served in a number of previous administrations and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bush’s foreign policy team had high hopes in 2007 that in the final stretch of a bruising two terms, it could eke out achievements to help offset the damage to the president’s record, much of it resulting from the calamities in Iraq. But in at least some instances, the efforts came after years of inaction, hobbling chances of success.

In Israel, Bush’s strategy of ignoring the problem didn’t quite work out. In North Korea, Kim Jung Il’s arsenal has grown stronger under Bush, and he’s still playing by his own rules. In Iran, the NIE apparently got in the way of military threats, and last week, when Bush was in the Middle East, “some of the Persian Gulf nations reached out to Tehran and appeared to deliberately distance themselves from the president.” In Poland, officials are interested in the administration’s missile defense proposals, but they want to wait until Bush’s successor is in place. In India, a nuclear agreement is in jeopardy. In Afghanistan, the country is slipping and Bush is arguing with NATO allies. In Pakistan, Bush has very little influence at all. All the while, political progress in Iraq is non-existent.

Given all of this, if we can just get through the next year without matters getting considerably worse, I’ll be very impressed.

Sad.
Shorter version:
If these lying murderers & thieves stop lying, killing & stealing, I will be impressed.

Steve, you give these POSs too much respect. If the American public had a functioning press (i.e. MSM), these people would be incarcerated already.

  • Maybe Bush is hoping for a Reagan-type legacy — y’know, credit for ending the Cold War after he left office. Dubya loosened the lid on our jar of foreign policy problems, see, so if a Democrat achieves success, it’ll be thanks to Bush.

  • Grumpy, I’d be happy if you were close to correct, but I fear all Bush has done is loosened the lid on Pandora’s Box such that anyone will have trouble achieving success (or even avoiding failure), thanks to Bush.

  • From absurdly unrealistic high expectations to “tidying up messes” and “laying sound foundations” for those to follow in just a couple months? Whew! Reality is a bitch. (I mean, really, what in Bush’s past — or conservative ideology — would suggest that Bush could have pulled off any of his earlier, lofty goals?) Get real.

  • “Laying sound foundations” means that they are trying to find ways to lock the next president into following Bush’s policies, by limiting her or his options. It will be the foreign policy equivalent of running up the debt so that the government has to abandon social programs and curtail spending.

  • If we voted with our feet, the Bush years would be kicked to the curb this ’08 election cycle! I hope we have the luxury on 1.20.08 to say we won’t let that happen again! Eight years of Rovean treachery aren’t quite over, and The Dick Cheney may wish to light up Iran this spring. Oh, and what about the Chernoff legecy over at DHS where he is installing his minions. These democratic charlatans can’t be pushed out fast enough! -Kevo

  • “If George Bush could breath underwater, he’d be a fish.”

    Or as we used to say down here, “If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.”

  • He’s been pretty successful from the perspective of those on the right.

    A bullying, aggressive foreign policy that pleases all the war mongering tough guys. And he brought freedom and democracy to Iraq (doesn’t matter that he brought misery, poverty, unremitting violence and hopelessness to the ordinary people. The players in this mess got fabulously wealthy). And the oil is ready for the pickins, just about. A few more years of the occupation should bring untold riches to the petroleum industry.

    And a supply side bonanza on the domestic front, in which the top 1% became ever so much richer, the next 9% have done very well, thank you, and the bottom 90%, the peons, have gotten the shaft, but it’s worth it because they’ve got God and guns to love, and abortions and gays to hate, and that keeps them happy and content.

  • Our foreign policy is a failure — no kidding!?! Whoda thunk that this nation’s international relations and prestige would wind up on the same junk heap as Arbusto and Harken Energy after have George W. Bush at the helm? Bush’s only interest in being president has been about enjoying the perks of office with a few moments of being able to wave his hand over decisions where people’s lives are at stake. Any expectation of Bush doing anything other than preening his ego while in office are sadly mistaken.

  • Great Blog, Steve!

    In this post, you have linked to the NYT and LAT, two struggling leftist newspapers, and offering their opinions of the Bush administration’s last year. One of the reasons that those two newspapers continue to lose both readership and ad revenue income, is that many Americans have recognized them for what they are, i.e. that they are extensions of the Democratic Party. BTW, the “Alphabet Networks” (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS) are also struggling for the same reason.

    STRATFOR offers another take on the Bush administration’s last year, and I will list a few of their points. First, for those who are wondering who or what STRATFOR (“Strategic Forecasting”) is, it is known as “The Shadow CIA”, and is a private intelligence agency. Some snippets from their Annual Forecast 2008: Beyond the Jihadist War article:

    There are three major global processes under way that will continue to work themselves out in 2008. First, the U.S.-jihadist war is entering its final phase; the destruction of al Qaeda’s strategic capabilities now allows the United States to shift its posture…

    ..Normally in an election year, U.S. attention on global affairs dwindles precipitously, allowing other powers to set the agenda. That will not be the case, however, in 2008…this frees up all of the administration’s bandwidth for whatever activities it wishes…

    ..The first phase of the Bush solution was to procure an anchor against Afghanistan by forcing Pakistan into an alliance. The second was to invade the state that bordered the other three – Iraq – in order to intimidate the remaining trio into cooperating against al Qaeda. The final stage was to press both wars until al Qaeda – the core organization that launched the 9/11 attack and sought the creation of a pan-Islamic caliphate… – broke.

    ..Put simply, the jihadist war is all but over; the United States not only is winning but also has an alliance with the entire constellation of Sunni powers that made al Qaeda possible in the first place.

    ..This leaves Iran, the region’s only non-Sunni power, in the uncomfortable position of needing to seek an arrangement with the United States…

    ..But Stratfor finds it unlikely that Tehran would choose strategic confrontation with both the United States and the Arab world when the benefits of cooperation – and the penalties for hostility – are so potent.

    ..This means 2008 will be similar to 2007 in many ways: It will be a year of opportunity for those powers that would take advantage of the United States’ ongoing distraction. However, they will face a complication that was absent in 2007: a deadline. The Iraqi logjam is broken. Unlike in 2007, when Iraq appeared to be a quagmire and other powers therefore sensed endless opportunity, those hostile to U.S. interests realize that they only have a limited window in which to reshape their regions.

    ..This will be a year in which the United States achieves more success in its foreign policies than it has since the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan in late 2001.

    Clearly a different view than that of the NYT and LAT…

    Since Bill Clinton had ignored the threat of terrorism for eight-years, and had in fact catered to such terrorists as Arafat, the radical Islamists were emboldened by America’s inactions. Saddam had broken his Terms of Probation so often, that I lost count around the 15th time (wish I had had such a Probation Officer as Bill). America was in need of a President who would stand-up to such Islamists and Arab leaders, and W became that much needed President.

    America cannot stand another weak-kneed socialist President from the Democratic Party…simple as that.

    (Sorry about the length, but such is sometimes needed.)

  • Yeah, seaberry, it’s a crime that Clinton ignored his predessor’s advice and then also ignored the August 11, 2001 presidential briefing.

    Oh, wait, that’s not how it went was it?

    What color is a seaberry?

    Maroon

  • Seaberry,

    Too bad we’ll have to stay in Iraq for 100? years to ensure that civil war won’t erupt for at least 100? years and one day. The MIC cant haul away the money of the lower classes fast enough. As far as Jihad goes, do you actually think that 911/McVeigh type operations are beyond their capability now? You don’t need a trillion dollar budget or millions of troops for that type of thing. All of our regional ‘allies’ are, of necessity, repressive and authoritarian. Ironically, the character of these necessary regimes foments radical extremism. These late second term attempts at windowdressing are like all of the ‘successes’ of the Bush regime; illusory. That is, If you dont count damaging the American government and looting your own country.

  • “Since Bill Clinton had ignored the threat of terrorism for eight-years, and had in fact catered to such terrorists as Arafat, the radical Islamists were emboldened by America’s inactions.”

    2001: bin Laden lives in a cave in the boonies of Afghanistan.

    2008: bin Laden lives in relative security within Pakistan’s borders.

    So if W leaves office with bin Laden still on the loose, will his administration be considered a failure like Clinton’s?

    “Saddam had broken his Terms of Probation so often, that I lost count around the 15th time (wish I had had such a Probation Officer as Bill). ”

    The Clinton administration did not want to invade Iraq because it realized that doing so would require hundreds of thousands of troops and could very well lead to a quagmire.
    But don’t take my word for it:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY&feature=related

    So what conditions changed between 1994 and 2003 that required an invasion?

    “America was in need of a President who would stand-up to such Islamists and Arab leaders, and W became that much needed President.”

    But W is still only more than willing to go down on the Saudis faster than a ten dollar crack whore.

  • Steve, I’m surprised that your post received such a reaction from the wingnuts, since I thought you gave Bush’s last gasp far too much credit. “Idealistic”? “Ambitious”? “Aim high?” No way. The neocons’ ambitions have not been idealistic or “high” in the past and are not now. Their purpose is to slap something together and proclaim victory. Just as “democracy” in Iraq consisted of a quickie election – purple fingers anyone? – without building democratic institutions, “peace” between Israelis and Palestinians is a matter of knocking some heads together to achieve an agreement in the hope it will last all the way to February 2009. The “surge” worked because violence (against Americans) went down for two months. That was good enough for the corporate media, without further analysis or alternate explanations. “Political reconciliation” was achieved when the Iraqi government passed a “de-Baathification” law that was imposed by Shiites and opposed by Sunnis. The list goes on. So what relationship does a Middle East photo op have with idealism or high ambitions? You need to dial down the rhetoric, Steve. You don’t work for the trad med, do you?

  • Hark
    to Iraq (doesn’t matter that he brought misery, poverty, unremitting violence and hopelessness to the ordinary people

    like the citizens of Iraq weren’t in that position under Saddam H.,

    well anyways,
    every administration since Carter has been after the Mideast to solve for peace, but it isn’t going to happen, it’s the same conflicts over and over, it’s a real hotbed and once Iraq is secure the oil profits will hopefully go to help the country and the the people, sad if they do go to their elite or leaders only. But that is human nature, it’s a horrible cycle.

    Help the ones you can and hope they continue the good fight.

  • Comments are closed.