Two steps back
It has been a wild few weeks for supporters of the Bush plan to spread democracy in the Middle East. Developments in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt have been well-documented, sometimes to exhausting length; sometimes with dizzying rhetoric. There are a lot of questions and hesitations that should trample Republican/liberal hawk gloating, but overall one has to say that even these tentative, fragile steps would have been impossible without regime change in Iraq and the heroic election that followed (an election, it is important to note, that the Admin didn't want to happen, which should be enough to shut up messianic preening).
However, just when you think things are going well, the Administration shoots itself in the foot with two high-ranking appointments to international bodies. Last week, it was announced that John Bolton would become the Ambassador to the United Nations, a body he detests. We'll talk about Bolton a little more later, as he is not very well-known. The well-known appointee is to the Presidency of the World Bank; the nominee is the globally despised Paul Wolfowitz.
Start with Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz is one of the leading proponents of regime change in Iraq, and one of the most forceful voices that convinced President Bush to go to war. He is the most well-known "neo-con," gaining fame over even Richard Perle. Throughout the world, his name is met with fear and disdain.
Not here, though, and by here I mean on this site. I like Wolfowitz. I think sometimes he is irritating, and even offensive (pretending not to know how many troops had been killed in Iraq when testifying before Congress was one of the most repugnant displays of truth-hiding during the course of this war- a callous display driven by arrogant ideology). But I think Wolfowitz is the most consistently interesting man in the Admin.
A Washington Times article from a few years ago (I can't find a link to it anymore; I apologize) detailed a complex, fascinating man. The reporter clearly went into the story expecting to find a drooling monster and came out of it deeply impressed. Wolfowitz is a man driven by a hatred of tyranny and oppression. His family escaped Eastern Europe before WWII, but his extended family was wiped out by the Holocaust, and he was forged in this weird prism of fear and relief, and a deep love for the freedom America provides.
Once, at a pro-Israeli rally, Wolfowitz, through an expected chorus of boos, talked about the suffering of the Palestinians, and how it was important to remember their needs. Wolfowitz is usually described as a staunch supporter of Israel, and he is, but recognizes the humiliating brutality of the Occupation and the rights of the Palestinians, and does not slavishly approve of everything done by Sharon. He is not a Likudnik.
His rationale for the war in Iraq followed a similar logic. Yes, a stable and democratic Middle East is good for both America and Israel, but Wolfowitz recognizes that these things are a great good outside of their strategic needs. He loathed Saddam and what he did to the Iraqis trapped under his cruel thumb. He hates the oppressive and autocratic regimes all throughout the Muslim world (and outside of it as well). Though his zeal may at times be frightening and one fears he thinks military action in Iran would be a good thing (it wouldn't), his heart is in the right place.
John Bolton, on the other hand, is an explosion-obsessed nutcase, a far-right chicken hawk who, were he not so smart, would be driving around with a car full of yellowed, crazily underlined newspaper clippings and a bumper sticker reading "US out of UN/UN out of US." He is a hawk for the sole reason that he thinks the US has to use all of its power in a dangerous world, and despises multilateralism. He hates the United Nations- it is the same vein as appointing Spencer Abrams as Secretary of Energy, a cabinet pose that as Senator he tried to abolish- only here, it is writ large on the international level.
The implication is obvious- the Bush Administration feels that their tactics are a universal, unquestionable success, with no caveats or missteps, and certainly giving no sway to the notion that they may have stumbled backwards into achieving their goal. Appointing Bolton is a slap in the face to multilateralism; it is a way to say to the UN that they will be doing things our way, or else. This is a dangerous and arrogant move at time when Poland, Ukraine and Italy are all discussing withdrawing their troops. Even if it doesn't make too big of a tactical difference (though we will miss the Poles), it will make a giant difference in perception.
And the perception is the important thing here. It sounds weird for me to bury Wolfowitz' nomination than praise him in the next breath. But we are in many ways fighting a war of perception. That is as important in this death-struggle against radical Islam as is fighting and killing the bad guys. Wolfowitz is hated in the Middle East, where people know little about him other than the Zionist conspiracy gibberish.
What is this gibberish? It is the notion that a cabal of Israel-fellating Likudnik American Jews are driving US policy in a direction that only serves the greater good of the Jewish state. Wolfowitz, with his clearly Jewish name, is an easy target for this vile caricature. Yes, there are people in the US who are just as concerned with Israel as America, but to assume that A) it is just because they are Jewish and B) all Jews feel this way is a horrid notion. The claim of anti-Semitism may in fact be leveled too often, but that doesn't mean it isn't even more often appropriate.
And it is growing in places, especially Europe, where it has been adopted, albeit with more gentle rhetoric, by the left- allowing them to make an obscene dovetail with the traditional hard-right. This is a terrible development, and one we'll look at more closely tomorrow.
So what am I saying: that appointments need to be decided by global consensus? Of course not- it is the right of any nation to determine who will represent them. The World Bank is slightly different, as Wolfowitz is not there only to further American interests, but tradition dictates the US appoints the post. It is the prerogative of the President to make these appointments.
However, there need to be other concerns addressed. Wolfowitz is an easy target, and unless Bolton reins himself in he will turn off even those countries who support the US. This is dangerous. The war we are in can only be won when Muslim countries come to the consensus that jihad is ruinous and those who have hijacked Islam provide a bad alternative. But for that to happen America has to show a good alternative- the power and freedom of a secular, democratic society.
The election in Iraq helped this, as does the Cedar Revolution and Egypt's slow steps. But the President is threatening to erase these steps by appointing two loathed men. It is hard to say which is worse- I think it is Bolton, because he is a dangerous nutcase. But the Wolfowitz one is very bad, even though I think in the long run his humanist side will allow him to do an excellent job in the fight against poverty (which is a big part in the war against terror).
But the World Bank is already seen by many as an arm of bullying American policy. And Wolfowitz is (wrongly) perceived as one of the chief proponents of a testosterone-driven Islam-hating US war machine. The confluence of the two will help to convince even moderates that the US only has bad intentions. There are surely others who can do a good job. I know Bush wants to reward Wolfowitz, but the price of his loyalty will be paid by the rest of us.
However, just when you think things are going well, the Administration shoots itself in the foot with two high-ranking appointments to international bodies. Last week, it was announced that John Bolton would become the Ambassador to the United Nations, a body he detests. We'll talk about Bolton a little more later, as he is not very well-known. The well-known appointee is to the Presidency of the World Bank; the nominee is the globally despised Paul Wolfowitz.
Start with Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz is one of the leading proponents of regime change in Iraq, and one of the most forceful voices that convinced President Bush to go to war. He is the most well-known "neo-con," gaining fame over even Richard Perle. Throughout the world, his name is met with fear and disdain.
Not here, though, and by here I mean on this site. I like Wolfowitz. I think sometimes he is irritating, and even offensive (pretending not to know how many troops had been killed in Iraq when testifying before Congress was one of the most repugnant displays of truth-hiding during the course of this war- a callous display driven by arrogant ideology). But I think Wolfowitz is the most consistently interesting man in the Admin.
A Washington Times article from a few years ago (I can't find a link to it anymore; I apologize) detailed a complex, fascinating man. The reporter clearly went into the story expecting to find a drooling monster and came out of it deeply impressed. Wolfowitz is a man driven by a hatred of tyranny and oppression. His family escaped Eastern Europe before WWII, but his extended family was wiped out by the Holocaust, and he was forged in this weird prism of fear and relief, and a deep love for the freedom America provides.
Once, at a pro-Israeli rally, Wolfowitz, through an expected chorus of boos, talked about the suffering of the Palestinians, and how it was important to remember their needs. Wolfowitz is usually described as a staunch supporter of Israel, and he is, but recognizes the humiliating brutality of the Occupation and the rights of the Palestinians, and does not slavishly approve of everything done by Sharon. He is not a Likudnik.
His rationale for the war in Iraq followed a similar logic. Yes, a stable and democratic Middle East is good for both America and Israel, but Wolfowitz recognizes that these things are a great good outside of their strategic needs. He loathed Saddam and what he did to the Iraqis trapped under his cruel thumb. He hates the oppressive and autocratic regimes all throughout the Muslim world (and outside of it as well). Though his zeal may at times be frightening and one fears he thinks military action in Iran would be a good thing (it wouldn't), his heart is in the right place.
John Bolton, on the other hand, is an explosion-obsessed nutcase, a far-right chicken hawk who, were he not so smart, would be driving around with a car full of yellowed, crazily underlined newspaper clippings and a bumper sticker reading "US out of UN/UN out of US." He is a hawk for the sole reason that he thinks the US has to use all of its power in a dangerous world, and despises multilateralism. He hates the United Nations- it is the same vein as appointing Spencer Abrams as Secretary of Energy, a cabinet pose that as Senator he tried to abolish- only here, it is writ large on the international level.
The implication is obvious- the Bush Administration feels that their tactics are a universal, unquestionable success, with no caveats or missteps, and certainly giving no sway to the notion that they may have stumbled backwards into achieving their goal. Appointing Bolton is a slap in the face to multilateralism; it is a way to say to the UN that they will be doing things our way, or else. This is a dangerous and arrogant move at time when Poland, Ukraine and Italy are all discussing withdrawing their troops. Even if it doesn't make too big of a tactical difference (though we will miss the Poles), it will make a giant difference in perception.
And the perception is the important thing here. It sounds weird for me to bury Wolfowitz' nomination than praise him in the next breath. But we are in many ways fighting a war of perception. That is as important in this death-struggle against radical Islam as is fighting and killing the bad guys. Wolfowitz is hated in the Middle East, where people know little about him other than the Zionist conspiracy gibberish.
What is this gibberish? It is the notion that a cabal of Israel-fellating Likudnik American Jews are driving US policy in a direction that only serves the greater good of the Jewish state. Wolfowitz, with his clearly Jewish name, is an easy target for this vile caricature. Yes, there are people in the US who are just as concerned with Israel as America, but to assume that A) it is just because they are Jewish and B) all Jews feel this way is a horrid notion. The claim of anti-Semitism may in fact be leveled too often, but that doesn't mean it isn't even more often appropriate.
And it is growing in places, especially Europe, where it has been adopted, albeit with more gentle rhetoric, by the left- allowing them to make an obscene dovetail with the traditional hard-right. This is a terrible development, and one we'll look at more closely tomorrow.
So what am I saying: that appointments need to be decided by global consensus? Of course not- it is the right of any nation to determine who will represent them. The World Bank is slightly different, as Wolfowitz is not there only to further American interests, but tradition dictates the US appoints the post. It is the prerogative of the President to make these appointments.
However, there need to be other concerns addressed. Wolfowitz is an easy target, and unless Bolton reins himself in he will turn off even those countries who support the US. This is dangerous. The war we are in can only be won when Muslim countries come to the consensus that jihad is ruinous and those who have hijacked Islam provide a bad alternative. But for that to happen America has to show a good alternative- the power and freedom of a secular, democratic society.
The election in Iraq helped this, as does the Cedar Revolution and Egypt's slow steps. But the President is threatening to erase these steps by appointing two loathed men. It is hard to say which is worse- I think it is Bolton, because he is a dangerous nutcase. But the Wolfowitz one is very bad, even though I think in the long run his humanist side will allow him to do an excellent job in the fight against poverty (which is a big part in the war against terror).
But the World Bank is already seen by many as an arm of bullying American policy. And Wolfowitz is (wrongly) perceived as one of the chief proponents of a testosterone-driven Islam-hating US war machine. The confluence of the two will help to convince even moderates that the US only has bad intentions. There are surely others who can do a good job. I know Bush wants to reward Wolfowitz, but the price of his loyalty will be paid by the rest of us.
posted by cairobrian | 2:32 PM
2 Comments:
"a cabal of israel-fallating likudnik american jews" — wonderful prose!
now that i have the image of a bespectacled wolfowitz deep-throating a coincidentally phallic map cut-out of the holy land...
i don't know where i read it, but a while back i saw an item (maybe in the hill) that mentioned bolton as a possible u.n. nominee, with commentary that described it as a "reward" for his loyalty to cheney, and that it would be the u.n. post because most of the others with any prestige were already doled out. that item also mentioned wolfowitz and the world bank, categorizing it as a similar nomination (i.e. he didn't get secretery of state and rummy stayed on at defense). and with the karen hughes announcement, we have seen the policy of rewarding loyal soldiers with prestigious posts regardless of their ability to do important and symbolic jobs come to fruition.
the worst part of bolton's nomination is his atrotious mustache-combover combo. just awful. he looks like a biology professor that absolutely inhaled a plate of coke. i concur that it's a giant f-you to the rest of the world and especially the u.n., but since i am pretty much over believing this administration will do anything with any sense of humility, i am definitely intrigued...how are foreign diplomats going to treat this guy? we could have fireworks, and his potential for comedy is off the charts.
as to your column's missing player in the triumvirate of recently-announced nominations — hughes. what a piece of work. the shrillest, most ruthless politico on the bush team (aside from karl) is now trying to pretend she can be a diplomat. the daily show nailed...how about nominating someone to this post that can actually speak arabic and communicate our message to that part of the globe? really an unbelievable move, even by this administration's standards.
and finally, wolfy. i had the pleasure (well, pleasure is laying it on a bit thick...let's just say "coincidental status") of being a college classmate of his son and bumped into the man himself at dinner one night. maybe he is an interesting guy, but he is still an arrogant prick. his name is genuinely loathed throughout the globe, and i include myself in that group. but regardless, as you mentioned, this is about perception. the things we hear about the "bush bubble" must be true — they really just sit around slapping themselves on the back without any concern for what anyone outside of the west wing thinks.
all three nominations are so predictably arrogant and self-absorbed that they simply feed the caricature of the bush administration throughout the world. one would have hoped that with their foreign policy bearing some fruit and perhaps getting a second look from some in europe and even at home, they would take advantage of the moment and tread a little softer to advance their interests with some help from others. but we only get more stomping.
Yeah, you are right to point out the shamful lack of mention of Ms. Hughes. I think it was so off-the-charts flabergasting I never really processed it. At least the nominations of Bolton and Wolfowitz have some internal logic, can be rationalized, et- but the Hughes nom can't even pretend to have any reason other than a great big thanks to the left half of Bush's brain.
Nice work on the saratorial miscues of Bolton. Far be it from me to criticize the way someone presents themselves to the public- I would guess half my shirts have holes- but Bolton should have a little respect. I think it will be interesting to see the stultifying logic of the UN wear away Bolton. Just break him in half, as the plod through weak resolutions, til he mechanically writes one "firmly condemning" a North Korean policy to eat every thrid baby, not even caring anymore. Fantastic!
Post a Comment
<< Home