Bush's foreign policy shifts to pre-emption

www.dailytimesonline.com By John Yaukey Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush never envisioned this, nor did he want it: the United States policing the world for weapons of mass destruction while nation building in the bombed-out husk of a country even Russia had abandoned.

Bush campaigned in 2000 practically as an isolationist.

And yet now -- halfway through his first term -- he finds himself propping up what is left of Afghanistan, talking about bringing democracy to the Arab world by ousting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and, more recently, facing off against North Korea in an effort to stabilize Asia.

This is a radical leap for someone who couldn't name the leader of Pakistan during his presidential campaign and had rarely ventured beyond the lower 48 states as a young man.

The metamorphosis of Bush's foreign policy philosophy has been driven in part by the necessities of combating terrorism. Indeed, Bush has not been shy about letting Americans know how profoundly he was changed by the events of Sept. 11, almost coming to tears before TV cameras in the Oval Office shortly after the attacks.

The 9-11 imperative

As horrible as Sept. 11 was, it gave the Bush presidency a powerful new motivation -- to prevent anything like it from happening again -- and a new energy.

"I remember saying I hope the first emergency doesn't come too quickly," said Calvin Jillson, chairman of the political science department at Southern Methodist University in Texas. "But within the first 48 hours of September 11th, he was on top of that in a way that resonated with the broad majority of Americans. That has buoyed him from that point to this."

Other early successes have also emboldened Bush: Al-Qaida is on the run, more than 90 nations have signed on to the U.S.-led war on terrorism, the United Nations Security Council has passed a tough resolution commanding Iraq to disarm and NATO has been retooled to fight terrorism.

Bush's influence has been felt even among hostile states such as Syria, which surprised much of the international community by voting for the Security Council resolution against its neighbor Iraq.

But potentially disastrous challenges loom from the Korean peninsula to the Middle East. Meanwhile, antipathy for American policy is growing abroad.

"I think he has spread himself very thin," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "We are still in Afghanistan. He is about to fight a war with Iraq, he is dealing with the threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea, and he is trying to deal with threats here and abroad -- all simultaneously."

Some analysts worry that Bush's success might not hold up well if the world dissolves into a series of gray-area conflicts where the president can't easily wield the moral authority he gathered from the Sept. 11 attacks. Even Britain, Bush's staunchest ally against Iraq, has started to voice concern about attacking without solid evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

"After September 11, some leading people in the administration made Iraq a very high priority," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. "Now we're in this murky area with no smoking guns. It remains to be seen what happens in the next act."

As Bush moves into the next two years, the stakes for his foreign policy could hardly be higher. He must confront the twin threats of terrorism and nations with weapons of mass destruction -- and the possible union of the two.

Bold style, new challenges

Bush has never had much use for the timid hedgings of pin-striped diplomats. He tends to see the world in stark tones, eschewing any moral relativism.

He characterized his reaction to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as "visceral," telling author Bob Woodward, "I loathe the man." And Bush has never pulled any punches with Saddam.

But his moral absolutism has not always played well as a foreign policy.

In his 2002 State of the Union speech, he named his now infamous "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- a move some view as a victory of zealous speechwriting over practical policy.

"Those words took people aback," said Leon Sigal, author of "Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea." "Up until the speech was delivered, a lot of policy people were trying to get them removed. And afterward, you didn't hear (Bush) use them much, if ever, again."

Still, later in a graduation speech at West Point, Bush took his high-minded vow to protect Americans from terrorism one step further, arguing for a doctrine of pre-emption against potential threats.

Once again, the president raised more than just eyebrows.

The hawkish former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger contended that the concept was "revolutionary," challenging the centuries-old system of international sovereignty.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called it naked imperialism.

But the Bush administration argued that Sept. 11 was absolutely a watershed, calling for a new approach to heading off threats before they materialize.

Historically, the United States shifted between unilateralism and cooperation throughout the 20th century. It fought communism in Vietnam almost alone. In Korea, during the 1950s, it worked with the United Nations. Pre-emption, however, is a new tactic.

The twin realities of the new age -- unchallenged American might and cataclysmic terrorism -- prompted Washington's neophyte world player to undertake the most comprehensive reassessment of American foreign policy since the dawn of the Cold War.

Rough ride ahead

In declaring his pre-emptive war on terror, Bush told Americans to brace for a rough ride.

He'll need to fasten his own seat belt as well. Thus far, all his victories remain tenuous.

Afghanistan is still in critical condition. Merely dodging assassination will be a major test for its democratic leader Hamid Karzai while bandits and warlords once again rule the countryside.

While Bush secured a tough Security Council resolution against Saddam, support among even Americans for a war against Iraq is waning as weapons inspectors continue to scour the California-size country without much to show for it.

For all Bush's determination to hunt down "every last one" of the Sept. 11 terrorists, many are still at large. Another attack linked to Osama bin Laden could destroy public confidence in the administration.

And then there are the wildcards.

The raging Israeli-Palestinian conflict could anger the Arab world and turn a war against Iraq into a wider clash between Muslims and the West.

Political turmoil in Venezuela, a leading supplier of U.S. oil, could exacerbate the oil shortages brought on by a war with Iraq and undermine the already shaky economy.

The second half of Bush's term may well answer the question posed by the first: Does he really know what he's doing abroad?

Originally published Sunday, January 19, 2003