Which Bush era foreign policy will work best in the long-run?

I have written for today's (London) Times about three different Bush foreign policies...

• 'Neoconservatism' in Iraq;
• Multilateralism in Iran; and
• Realpolitik in Pakistan

I suggest that it's no longer impossible to believe that policy towards Iraq may produce the least troublesome nation of the three in a decade or two's time.  Space was limited but I could also have included Saudi Arabia in my list of Bush foreign policies - where outright appeasement has been pursued.

Text of article:

"Critics of George W Bush’s Middle East policy are hoping for a major change in direction once America’s 43rd President has left the White House.  The foreign offices of Europe all hope for more multilateralism.  More realpolitik.  Less sabre-rattling.

The critics have a problem, however.  In reality, Team Bush has largely been following European approaches to foreign policy in its relations with most of the world’s troublespot nations.

Take Pakistan.  The‘realist school’ couldn’t honestly disapprove of any aspect of the Bush administration’s dealings with Islamabad.  American taxpayers have financed a military dictator in the hope that Musharraf will suppress the Pakistan’s fundamentalists and continue to provide logistical support for NATO operations in Afghanistan.  Has this worked?  No.  Islamic militancy is mushrooming.  Musharraf has often bargained with the political patrons of the Madrassahs in order to stymie his democratic opponents.  If Musharraf falls the Pakistan people may see America as the nation that propped up the regime that introduced martial law and warped the constitution.  It’s all too reminiscent of America’s 1970s relationship with Iran’s Shah.

When it comes to present-day Iran Team Bush has been patiently multilateralist.  Washington allowed the years to pass as soft-powered Europe promised to negotiate an end to Tehran’s nuclear programme.  As it became increasingly obvious that the talks were doing nothing to slow President Ahmadinejad’s quest for a bomb, the Americans turned to the United Nations.  Russia and China, immersed in economic self-interests, have predictably vetoed any significant action.

Something akin to neoconservatism has only really been pursued in Iraq.  Even the keenest supporters of the war readily agree that dreadful mistakes have been made.  In Iraq there was little planning and post-invasion troop deployments and tactics were completely inadequate.  Nonetheless, the tide is now turning.  Violence has halved.  The progress of General Petraeus’ troops surge is increasingly apparent.

Rushing to judgment is hardwired into our 24/7 news culture but it probably won’t be possible to evaluate the mix’n’match Bush foreign policies for five, ten or even twenty more years.  The bungled road to a democratic Iraq has been far too bloody but it’s now perfectly sensible to believe that Bush’s pre-emptive war may have sown the seeds for what could be the least troubled nation of the region in a decade’s time.  The multilateral approach to Iran may leave us with a nuclear-armed Tehran, which, at best, would be terrorising Israel and holding the world to ransom over oil supplies.  Pakistan, already a nuclear power, may be a failing state – turning to anti-American strongmen for order.

When the next US President considers foreign policy options the most important lesson for him – or her - to remember is that American policy is most effective when the world’s only policeman is seen as strong.  That was particularly true immediately after the invasion of Iraq.  Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed.  Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Problems multiplied when America looked unwilling to commit necessary troops to finish the first battles of the war on terror.  A weak America, tied down by do-nothing multilateralists, is the last thing our dangerous world needs."

Comments

[Yet Another Anon]

It isn't as simple as there being a single foreign policy to apply worldwide, each country has to be approached differently depending on how they fit into the global community, their culture, military capabilities, resources and the way they behave towards other countries.

[Steevo]

Tim what does a strong America mean with Iran if they go nuclear and Pakistan if fanatics get power?

And what does it mean with our European friends? :(

[Adam Cull]

I fully agree a weak America is dangerous but disagree that Bush has lurched between three different foreign policies. He has rather accepted that no one strategy is sufficient in a world where the old cold war realities no longer hold. The Bush doctrine therefore rightly challenges the old dichotomy between realism and idealism and joins them together to form a ‘balance of power that favours freedom’. In reality this means different policies for different circumstances. Iraq is different to Iran is different to Pakistan is different to Saudi Arabia.

I can’t see this approach changing. The four key tenants of the Bush doctrine have relevance beyond 2009 and have not been seriously challenged by any of the Presidential candidates. They all accept that:

•democracies are inherently peaceful and have common interests in building a benign international environment that is congenial to American interests and ideals;
•That there is a great threat from terrorists, especially when linked to tyrannical regimes and weapons of mass destruction;
•That these new threats mean that deterrence and even defence are no longer adequate to deal with the dangers and so the US must be prepared to take preventative actions, including war, if necessary; and
•That although alliances should be sought, American actions cannot be vetoed.

They key debate in 2009 is not going to be about changing course but what new name to give to the Bush Doctrine.

[CAWP]

Fascinating premise - honestly quite the most thoughtful idea I've seen in ages.

[JF]

Tim,

I haven't commented on this site in some months, but I must say that this post (and accompanying article) is one of the most insightful policy analyses I have seen in a long time. Bravo.

[Malcolm Dunn]

It's too early to say whether American foreign policy has been unsuccessful in Pakistan.Musharraf may not fall or he may be replaced by another democrat.
Equally it is too early to judge what the outcome in Iran will be. What is the alternative? Iran is a much more powerful country than Iraq and I suspect that the only way to destroy the Iranians militarily is to nuke them. Is that what you would suggest?

[Tim Montgomerie]

Malcolm: I agree that it's too early to judge which is why I wrote... "Rushing to judgment is hardwired into our 24/7 news culture but it probably won’t be possible to evaluate the mix’n’match Bush foreign policies for five, ten or even twenty more years." All I'm saying is that there is a real possibility that Bush/ the world has gotten things more wrong/ less right with Iran/ Pakistan.

Nice to have you back, JF, if only for a little while!

[Adam in London]

How can you talk about Pakistan without mentioning Benazir Bhutto?

[Jennifer Wells]

I agree... a really clever piece.
It's given me something to think about.

[Maduka]

democracies are inherently peaceful and have common interests in building a benign international environment that is congenial to American interests and ideals

I don't agree. Only LIBERAL democracies are inherently peaceful.

If the Arabic World turned democratic tomorrow, Islamist organisations will be empowered - it won't be pretty. In Africa, democracy has not guaranteed stability. The major challenge in much of the World is not international conflict, but intra-national conflict.

An example is Nigeria. Shari'a was never adopted under military rule, but as soon as democratic rule was restored in 1999 - 12 out of the 36 Nigerian states adopted Shari'a. Niger Delta militancy also increased after democratic rule was restored.

At present, Nigeria (that provides 12% of our crude and rising) is in the danger of implosion. The same applies to MANY other strategic nations.

The thrust of our foreign policy should be on building institutions. Institutions and not elections guarantee stability. A nation like Saudi Arabia (whose courts sentence a woman to lashing and jail time for being raped) - does not have the institutions to support a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.

Our foreign policy is rightly focussed on security. However, we need to place a little more emphasis on economics. In much of the World, we are emphasizing security and counter-terrorism which is good. But security and counter-terrorism are not the most important issues for people and leadership in large parts of the World.

It is bad PR to give the world the impression that "we just want to hunt down the bad guys and we will give you aid as part of the process". We are busy establishing military ties (Somalia, Djibouti, Philippines, Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria) while the Chinese are establishing economic ties.

Which ties endure the most - military or economic?