What will be the fate of the Bush Doctrines, the stuff Palin thought was some book she hadn’t read, of “unilateralism,” “preventive war,” and “democratic regime change” once Bush is gone?
Unfortunately, unilateralism has been a feature of U.S. foreign policy for awhile, b/f W. The U.S., during Clinton Administration, Bush the Elder, etc has refused to sign or ratify hugely popular international agreements on climate change, landmines, and the rights of indigenous people. People often forget when Clinton bombed locations in the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, in retaliation for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, and w/out any UN Security Council authorization. During the campaign Obama said w/ reliable evidence he’d strike against Bin Laden or Al Queda with or without the authorization of the UN or even Pakistan. Unilateralism and preventive war remain the prerogatives of superpowers for the foreseeable future.
But, at least, with this shoe episode can we agree that the tragically preposterous proposition of imposing “democratic regime change” by military invasion is once and for all dead? During the campaign McCain hammered Obama for not conceding the success of the surge strategy in Iraq. Obama remained mum but Biden, by proxy, made the essential point that surge was tactical. Meaning, the goal of the surge was to reduce the violence so that Iraq’s leaders could come together politically. Have they? McCain and the Bush Administration, missing this point, remain mired in the arrogant imperialist delusion of the military solution. But they lost.
So has the regime change by military invasion strategy lost, too? Some argue the right’s surge success argument is a setup so that when all hell breaks loose when the U.S. does finally pull out it’ll be blamed on Obama and the Democrats. Thus, reviving that old Vietnam canard that we “lost” b/c we didn’t support our troops to victory. Gawd.
Apparently, the Iraqi shoe guy, Muntander al-Zaidi is a Sunni, Iraq’s Muslim minority; a former Baathist, Saddam’s political party. What is going to happen when we stop “occupying” Iraq? Will the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find a way to cooperate that has eluded them so far? Will the Shia majority draw closer to Iran? How will the rest of the Sunni Middle East react to an Iraq-Iran alliance?
And how will all this impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Israel’s right to exist in the Middle East? The Palestinians full human rights in Israel or an independent Palestinian state? It’s not clear but it is clear that a military solution is no solution at all, right? Right?!
I’d like to think al-Zaidi, an Iraqi, got the last word, so to speak. Must say, though, it was scary, impressive how Bush maintained his composure, no? He drops his signature smirk for barely a second. Bush is lucky it was only a shoe. But has five years of “occupation” and a couple of shoes been enough?
Unfortunately, unilateralism has been a feature of U.S. foreign policy for awhile, b/f W. The U.S., during Clinton Administration, Bush the Elder, etc has refused to sign or ratify hugely popular international agreements on climate change, landmines, and the rights of indigenous people. People often forget when Clinton bombed locations in the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, in retaliation for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, and w/out any UN Security Council authorization. During the campaign Obama said w/ reliable evidence he’d strike against Bin Laden or Al Queda with or without the authorization of the UN or even Pakistan. Unilateralism and preventive war remain the prerogatives of superpowers for the foreseeable future.
But, at least, with this shoe episode can we agree that the tragically preposterous proposition of imposing “democratic regime change” by military invasion is once and for all dead? During the campaign McCain hammered Obama for not conceding the success of the surge strategy in Iraq. Obama remained mum but Biden, by proxy, made the essential point that surge was tactical. Meaning, the goal of the surge was to reduce the violence so that Iraq’s leaders could come together politically. Have they? McCain and the Bush Administration, missing this point, remain mired in the arrogant imperialist delusion of the military solution. But they lost.
So has the regime change by military invasion strategy lost, too? Some argue the right’s surge success argument is a setup so that when all hell breaks loose when the U.S. does finally pull out it’ll be blamed on Obama and the Democrats. Thus, reviving that old Vietnam canard that we “lost” b/c we didn’t support our troops to victory. Gawd.
Apparently, the Iraqi shoe guy, Muntander al-Zaidi is a Sunni, Iraq’s Muslim minority; a former Baathist, Saddam’s political party. What is going to happen when we stop “occupying” Iraq? Will the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find a way to cooperate that has eluded them so far? Will the Shia majority draw closer to Iran? How will the rest of the Sunni Middle East react to an Iraq-Iran alliance?
And how will all this impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Israel’s right to exist in the Middle East? The Palestinians full human rights in Israel or an independent Palestinian state? It’s not clear but it is clear that a military solution is no solution at all, right? Right?!
I’d like to think al-Zaidi, an Iraqi, got the last word, so to speak. Must say, though, it was scary, impressive how Bush maintained his composure, no? He drops his signature smirk for barely a second. Bush is lucky it was only a shoe. But has five years of “occupation” and a couple of shoes been enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment