fontman
07-11-06, 02:48 PM
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."
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."