July 17, 2006

Our Prez, At It Again (Part 293,494)

Yeah, some of you will write this off as yet-another "Baltar raving about Bush" post, but I think there is an important point here. According to multiple news sources (I'm using the New York Times), Bush said some interesting things into an unsecured microphone:

Mr. Bush then abruptly changed the subject to the Mideast, complaining about Mr. Annan's approach to the crisis, and for holding the view - which is shared by many of the leaders here - that Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah should halt the violence and then hash out their differences. The Americans have said that Israel would likely only stand down if Hamas and Hezbollah returned the soldiers they have kidnapped and ceased their shelling of Israeli towns.

"I don't like the sequence of it," Mr. Bush said. "His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything else happens."

He went on to say the U.N. should directly enlist the Syrians to intervene. "I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen," he said to Mr. Blair, referring to Syria's president, Bashir Assad.

"See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this [expletive]," Mr. Bush said, "and it's over."

The interesting thing here, for me, is how focused on states Bush turns out to be: "...get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop..." This assumes that Syria is controlling Hezbollah, which is a difficult assumption. Moreover, Bush is (implicitly) assuming that the actor with the greatest control of Hezbollah is Syria (not Bashar, not any of Iran's leadership, or the people of Lebanon, etc.). I will likely get some disagreement, but I don't think it's clear that Syria has that sort of control over Hezbollah (especially since the US helped force Syria out of Lebanon after the assassination of Hariri a year or so ago), and Bush is likely barking up the wrong tree here (and Kofi Annan is significantly limited in his power to get anyone to do anything in large part because the US - among others - doesn't want to give the UN any sort of power which the UN might actually use against us at some point).

Bush's focus for six years now has been on states: invade Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, invade Iraq as a response to global islamic terrorism. He seems to fundamentally misunderstand that there are relevant and important actors in international politics that aren't states. Moreover, these non-state actors seem to be gaining in power at the same time that states and sovereignty seem to be fading (this isn't to say that states aren't powerful, just that the balance is beginning to tip against them). The thing is, dealing with non-state actors is very complicated. States have fairly defined channels of communication and rules for interactions that have been built up over centuries of international relations. This isn't the case with non-state actors, and most modern states (not just the US) have struggled to understand, communicate and relate to them. It's a complex world out there.

But Bush seems to be pushing back at that complexity with a child-like "pretend it's not there and make it go away" attitude. Pretending that states are the only actors certainly makes for orderly and regular foreign policy, but won't actually work as a foreign policy in 2006.

Engaging non-state actors is complicated, but if you don't play the game you can't win. You should start by recognizing their existence, at least.

BONUS: Bonus idiocy from our resident ambassador/clown to the UN, John Bolton (from the same NYT link, above):

"You would have a ceasefire in a matter of nanoseconds if Hezbollah and Hamas release their prisoners and stop engaging in rocket attacks and terrorist acts against Israel," Mr. Bolton said.

Shorter Bolton: if Hezbollah and Hamas cease shooting at Israel, there wouldn't be a war.

Really? If one side stops shooting at the other, then the war stops? Who'd a thunk that?

Posted by baltar at July 17, 2006 11:11 AM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs


Comments

Well it doesn't stop if side #2 keeps shooting after side #1 has stopped.

The states are really at fault catch is interesting here. Very interesting. It shows how the president and his pals are still very much living in their pre-9/11 worldview, all the intervening actions notwithstanding.

And the focus on Syria is very interesting too, as it would seem to suggest that the briefings he's getting might be focusing on them and not Iran. And since the president is fond of attacking weak states instead of strong, threatening states ... anyone think we might start see more US troops headed to Western Iraq? I don't think that yet. But if this keeps going on ...

And again, just for the record, I find the president's seeming complete disregard for what the Israelis are doing to the innocent and to Lebanon for that matter to show a man who's very far from moral, in any Christian sense of the term that I'm familiar with. I mean it's nice he realizes Hezbollah killing the innocent is nasty and thuggish - but they aren't the only ones killing the innocent. And you'd think that would matter to such a vocally "born again" guy.

Posted by: Armand at July 17, 2006 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush's focus for six years now has been on states: invade Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, invade Iraq as a response to global islamic terrorism. He seems to fundamentally misunderstand that there are relevant and important actors in international politics that aren't states."
If Bush blamed Iraq for 9/11, as a state, then why didn't we wage war on Iraq, the state? If Bush blamed Afghanistan for 9/11, as a state, then why didn't we wage war on Afghanistan, the state? Why is it we waged war on the Taliban and Saddam and his loyalists, if Bush was simplisticly focused on states rather that non-state entities, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?

Posted by: Morris at July 17, 2006 06:40 PM | PERMALINK

Uh - just what do you think the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were? The Taliban was what there was of a state in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein was the top and and center of the state of Iraq (and "his loyalists" were the rest of the state).

Posted by: Armand at July 17, 2006 10:31 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?