The End of Cowboy Diplomacy, declares Time Magazine

[fontman]

The End of Cowboy Diplomacy, declares Time Magazine
July 11, 2006
By Greg Strange

Talk about an attention-grabbing title for a Time Magazine cover story. Turn the pages to the article and the subtitle is no less compelling: "WHY GEORGE W. BUSH'S GRAND STRATEGY FOR REMAKING THE WORLD HAD TO CHANGE. And how about that cover photo of a huge cowboy hat covering up all but the shoes and lower pants legs of a man.

Just in case you're wondering exactly what "cowboy diplomacy" is, Time's definition seems to have to do with what is described in the following excerpt from the article:

After Sept. 11 . . . the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. He aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut.

But in the span of four years, the Administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine with which it hoped to remake the world as the strategy's ineffectiveness is exposed by the very policies it prescribed. The swaggering Commander in Chief (essential element of cowboyism) who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies "dead or alive," conceding that "in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jon Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action - or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls "doctrinal flameout."

Well, thank goodness all that rootin' tootin', Wild West, "wanted dead or alive," cowboying nonsense is over. Now we can go back to the same old lame, ineffectual, endless jawboning so loved by the world's top notch dictators and terrorists who merely laugh and continue right on with their usual atrocities. It may not do much for the victims of those guys, but it's a sweet gig for diplomats and UN types who like nothing better than gentlemanly debate that is full of ponderous-sounding language but accomplishes nothing.

Yep, who isn't nostalgic for those days from, let's say, the 1970s all the way through most of 2001? It was a heady time, especially for Middle Eastern dictators and terrorists who pretty much ran wild with impunity. I won't bore you with the litany of terrorist outrages because they're probably already ingrained in your mind. And, with the notable exception of certain Israeli actions, about the worst that ever happened was a cruise missile got fired off here or there at a terrorist training camp or what have you and there were probably more camels killed than terrorists.

And then 9/11 happened and there was a new sheriff in town who talked tough, yes, but backed it up with action and proceeded to dismantle the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Saddam's mass-murdering totalitarian regime. He also described the rogue states of Iran and North Korea as being part of an "axis of evil," which sent the left into paroxysms of outraged exasperation. How dare this cowboy use the word "evil" so recklessly and indiscriminately! Why, it reminds us of another cowboy whom we so loathed, the guy who had the unmitigated temerity to stand up to Soviet communism as if it was some kind of threat to the world rather than just an alternative lifestyle.

Hmm . . . On second thought, maybe what we need is not less cowboy diplomacy, but more. If the Saddam's and the Ahmadinejad's and the Kim Jong-il's of the world knew that the world's civilized powers were all cowboys, were serious and couldn't be played like a cheap fiddle, things might be a whole lot different.

For instance, imagine if such world powers stood up in unity and said to the absurd little dictator of North Korea, you try to launch one more missile and we take out every military installation in the country. What would he do, wage war against all of Western civilization?

Unfortunately, these days the only kind of cowboys that are in fashion are the kind that cozy up together in the same sleeping bag. Forget about "wanted dead or alive." Instead, it's more like, "Wanted: GWM cowboy seeks same for ridin', ropin' and rompin' around a late night campfire."

[rktect3j]

I don't normally read Time mag but when I saw the Zarqawi issue a couple weeks ago I picked it up. Paid for it. Brought it home. Opened the cover and was dissapointed from the front cover to the back. I had no idea how leftist this rag had gone. I will never buy that trash mag again. I have other peoples pockets to line with my hard earned money.

[hrscowboy]

Its a dammmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnn shame i didnt meet up with saddam cause he would have been hung in the nearest tree right outside that spiderhole they drug his arse out of and anyone else that was caught with him they would have been strung up too. To Hell with this trial crap i believe in Judge Roy bean ifin they done it hang em high...

[Pialphamu]

They say "Cowboy" like it's a bad thing. Where I come from, a cowboy is a lot like a Marine. They watch out for their own, and they don't take crap off of anyone. They are rough, tough, and if you pick on one of them, you are picking on them all, and you had better watch out! They are all American, flag waving, red, white, and blue bleedin' honest people. They don't believe in breaking the law, and would turn in anyone who did. You can leave your front door open and no one will steal a thing. They fear God and respect their Mommas. What is so wrong about that?

[rktect3j]

It smacks of high morality and flies in the face of the ultra left. I like it.

[ggyoung]

What would have happened to the army guy who opened the lid and found sadamn sh!thead and pulled the triger about 8 times in the head. In my book MOH.

[hrscowboy]

Thank you Pialphamu my next quote was just what you expressed..

[Pialphamu]

Gotta love a cowboy!;)

[thedrifter]

July 14, 2006, 6:50 a.m.

Has Bush -- or the World -- Changed?
About “Cowboy Diplomacy.”..

By Victor Davis Hanson

There is as much relief from realists as there is disappointment from neo-Wilsonians over a perceived change in U.S. foreign policy — what Time magazine clumsily dubbed “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.” It is true that there is now a regrettable new quietism about promoting democracy in the Middle East. And the United States also insists on multiparty talks with the ghoulish regimes in North Korea and Iran, in a fashion that purportedly seems much different from the go-it-alone caricature of 2001/2.

But think hard: Has George Bush, or the world itself, changed in the last five years?

One obvious difference from the first administration is the added nuclear component to the most recent pressing crises. Taking out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein did not involve an immediate threat of nuclear retaliation. Preempting against North Korea does run such risk — and perhaps very soon Iran will too. That requires a different strategy.

The second change from the immediate past is oil. For most of the first administration, the price of petroleum was around $20-$30 a barrel. We are now well into the era of $60-$70, and the threat of constant shortages.

This energy frailty has had two pernicious effects on U.S. foreign policy. Our allies in Europe and Japan now view almost any American initiative with Russia, the Middle East, or Latin America in terms of the potential fallout on their own energy costs and supplies.

In addition, the consuming nations are now providing a windfall of several hundred billion in extra profits to the likes of the House of Saud, the Iranian theocrats, the Gulf Sheikdoms, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. Not only are some of these billions recycled in nefarious ways in arms purchases and terrorist subsidies, but also the intrinsic failures of theocracy, autocracy, and neo-Communism are masked by such accidental largess.

Worse still, there is now a growing new relativist standard of international behavior for roguish regimes: The degree to which a non-democratic nation has either oil or nukes — or preferably both — determines its perceived legitimacy. Any individual action the United States now undertakes may spike oil prices, and thus endanger the livelihood of its allies or neutrals while further subsidizing our enemies.

A third difference is the fading memory of September 11 as we reach the fifth anniversary of that mass murder. As the anger of the American people subsides, weariness with the counter-response grows, and the very human desire not to rock the boat permeates national life — especially when we have not had, as predicted, another 9/11. It is hard to keep reminding the American people for five years that we alone must lead the world against the terrorists and their state sponsors.

So part of Mr. Bush’s dilemma derives also from his very success. The audacious removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban — coupled with the killing of thousands of Islamic terrorists abroad, together with a revolution in security procedures at home — have combined to prevent another jihadist attack. Now in our complacence, we think our recent safety was almost a natural occurrence rather than the result of national sacrifice and ordeal that must continue. And, again, such a return to normalcy makes the lonely task of prompting reform in the Middle East seem rather unnecessary, if not irrelevant.

Fourth, the rock has already been thrown into the Middle East pond, and the ripples are still on the water. One can argue about the effects of the Iraqi democracy on the larger Middle East — the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, the about-face in Libya, democratic peeps in the Gulf, or the end of the career of Dr. Khan — but the worst two governments are now gone, and the Middle East is in flux dealing with the detritus of these fallen regimes. Iraq is messy, but its chaos is no longer novel. And for all the violence, its democratic government just keeps chugging along, its enemies so far unable to derail it.

Fifth, the old lie that American bellicosity incited the Islamists has been shattered by a series of events that have had nothing to with Iraq. The French riots, the threats to Danish and Dutch artists, the plot to behead a Canadian prime minister, the Indian bombings, and on and on, have combined to educate the world. The violence reminds everyone that billions of Christians, Jews, Hindus, secularists, atheists, and modernists are hated for reasons that have almost nothing to do with U.S. efforts in Iraq. Therefore, allies are starting to renew their cooperation with us, realizing that their studied distance from America has brought them no reprieve. Moreover, the daily griping, victimization, scapegoating, and violence of the Islamic Arab world, whether directed against us in Iraq, or the Indians, Europeans, and Russians, for many has had the aggregate effect of tiring people, perhaps best characterized as a feeling like: “Forget them — they are hopeless and not worth another American soldier, dollar, or thought.”

All these considerations apparently allow — or sometimes force — the Bush administration to assume a supposedly less visible, more multilateral profile. There is one important caveat, however.

What progress we have made since 9/11 — thousands of terrorists killed, al Qaeda scattered, Europe galvanized about Islamism and sobered about the consequences of its cheap U.S. rhetoric, Iran’s nuclear antics revealed, democracy birthed in the Middle East, Palestinian radicals exposed for their fraud, the United Nations under overdue scrutiny, America much better defended at home — all that came as a result of an often unilateralist posture that risked global alienation by challenging the easy appeasement of the rest of the world. Nothing there to apologize for or change — but much accomplished to be proud of.

Of course, it is possible, and perhaps even understandable, to coast for a while and advisable to cool the rhetoric about bringing democratic change through “smoking out” and hunting down terrorists “dead or alive.” But we shouldn’t forget that the global village gets back to normal only after a Shane or Marshall Will Cane is willing to take on the outlaws alone and save those who can’t or won’t save themselves. So, remember, when, to everyone’s relief, such mavericks put down their six-shooters and ride off into the sunset, the killers often creep back into town.

Ellie

[marinegreen]

them crazy bastards in No Korea and Iran have WMD and we aint attacking them, hhhmmmmm !!!!