Ivo actually has a good point here.

However, the question remains: is Bush REALLY moving to a stance of "do nothing"? And if he is, is he doing that ACROSS THE BOARD?

It seems to be clearly the case vis-a-vis North Korea. The reasons why it is in North Korea are fairly obvious - there is no oil there, NK HAS nukes, and a military that CAN kick our ass at least temporarily. There's no particular immediate payoff for Bush in attacking NK - even if there are long-term anti-China reasons for doing so.

While Bush DOES seem to have explicitly said that he intends to do nothing with regard to Iraq - and as Josh has been emphasizing, leave the issue for the next administration - there are also good reasons - from Bush's point of view, anyway - why that is his policy. It's not going to cost him anything personally to do so, basically. It might harm the Republican's chances for either the 2006 elections - not proven yet - or the 2008 elections - but a lot could change in the next two and a half years. From Bush's point of view, Iraq could even sort itself out and end up in a state the Republicans can use to win the 2008 elections (yeah, I know, highly doubtful - who said Bush was a realist?)

Iran is not such a clear-cut case. There are a number of "good" neocon, oil company and military-industrial complex reasons for Bush to attack Iran. The only reasons NOT to attack Iran are the fact that it will harm REAL US interests, the US taxpayer, and of course the US military - none of which the neocons, oil and military-industrial complex companies give a damn about, just as they didn't give a damn about the probably REAL effects of attacking Iraq.

I'd say people need to wait - like Arnold Evans and I are, with our apology agreement - and see what happens with Iran. According to the terms of my agreement with Arnold, he apologizes the day Bush attacks Iran. I apologize on December 31st, 2008 - or maybe January 1st, 2009 - when Bush HASN'T attacked Iran in the next two and a half years.

I find that latter scenario to be dubious. Arnold doesn't. So we wait and see.

For once it is almost impossible to compare Bush's form of "diplomacy" to that of Bill Clinton's. The North Korea flare-up has been dealt with admirably by the administration. The proof for this statement is evident in the Democrats response: nothing. The Democrats have been as silent on the North Korea issue as the Republicans were on the Abramoff scandal.

Japan's insistence at bringing sanctions against North Korea has been, at least temporarily, defused; thus one could argue that this is a diplomatic success.

There is no war in Iran now and unlikely to be one in the near future. Is that not a diplomatic success even by the most liberal commentator's expectations?

Here is a question for everyone: With regard to the Bush administration's foreign policy, where in his 5+ years has he NOT been diplomatic with the sole exception of Iraq?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

A History Channel special on the Great Wall featured a historian trying to give some idea of the mammoth nature of the undertaking.

"Why in today's dollars, the Wall would cost some $320 Billion, which is the cost over the 40 years it took to build the US interstate highway system"

Guess it was filmed before the Greatest Strategic Disaster.

"Why that is as much as it cost to devastate Iraq"

To Gettysburg.  Afghanistan, initially.  You could also say the Bush diplomacy there (P.M Karzai) since the Taliban were turned out (but they're back now) has been less than stellar.

In general, Bush is "diplomatic" with respect to both foreign and domestic policy.  It is his wont to let the issues be joined by his minions (except for Cheney who has total control of foreign policy such as it is) despite his "I am the decider" declarations, and enter the fray representing the "calmer voice" on issues that appeal to his narrow political base.

About bombing Iran: Hersh's piece in the New Yorker informs us that Qatar would be the first target Iran would attack in response.  There goes the biggest CIA installation outside of Langley.

I'm not convinced there is a fundamental change in orientation, but I do think domestic politics, and those annoying facts on the ground, have conspired to slow Bushco down a bit, and create a lull. I expect things to change.

I think we have to focus on how current events may be playing into strategies for both 2006 and 2008. Bush isn't running for anything, but a bunch of his fellow Republicans are. Some Republican pundits and right-wing conservatives in safe districts may be upset about the lack of action. But a whole lot of Republicans in more moderate, contested districts are very glad Bush isn't doing anything to cause trouble for them right now. The Republicans are in bad shape, and voters may be gearing up to sweep a lot of the bums out. Anything Bush does that leads local voters to tie their individual rep or senator to the national party is bad for those individual Republicans. They would prefer to run on local issues, and have the national party keep its nose out of things for the time being - including at the White House level. So the White House will be quiet for a while, as the Republicans work to hang on to Congress, and also try to ease down oil prices. Come the late fall and Novemeber, we can expect to see things ramp up again.

Of course, it is true that with the Army drained and bogged down in Iraq, Bush's hands are tied in terms of major commitments of ground forces and money. So I would look for them to try something that would produce a quick easy win, relying on Naval and Air power. Perhaps a dramatic, but low-risk intervention with a satisfying humanitarian dimension - maybe in Africa. Bush's people are probably looking around for a nice Granada-style morale building operation - some un-fuck-upable slam dunk.

But while everyone is focussed on Iran, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush maneuver toward a pre-election October surprise operation of some sort against Syria. It should be quite easy to manufacture a cause for strikes compelling enough to beguile our belive-anything media. Another thwarted terrorist plot, a web site here, a Bin Laden tape there, an alleged Hamas or Hizb'ullah conection, and voila: a causus belli for taking out some sort of terrorist headquarters in Syria. It would certainly help the Republicans with the pro-Israel vote.

And we know that one of these days, when it is really needed politically, Bush has an ace to play - the eventual commando raid in Pakistan to kill Bin Laden.

In any case I expect them to cowboy up again in a serious way following the 2006 elction. They will probably even get some help from leading Democrats. Democrats are very worried about Iraq being handed off to them 2008, for very many reasons - not the least of which is the possibility of having to run a 2008 campaign with Hillary (woman) running against McCain (war hero) while a major conflict is still roaring, and with no end in sight. By summer of 2007, some Dems will be begging Bush to do something dramatic to bring Iraq to a conclusion, one way or another. You can expect several people - including Hillary - to go hawkish once again, accusing Bush of weakness and demanding decisive action.

I side with TH in the TH-Arnold debate. I do see Bush taking action of some sort against Iran prior to November, 2008.

"The North Korea flare-up has been dealt with admirably by the administration."

Right - Bush did nothing, the North Koreans have a half dozen new nukes, and is working on the missiles to throw them when they need to.

No US troops have died in North (or South) Korea - yet.

Yeah, I suppose that's a success in those terms...I don't think too many neocons are happy with it, though.

As for Iran, what part of "it ain't over until it's over" don't you get?

I am not exactly sure how the lack of action on sanctions called for by Japan can be considered a diplomatic success for the President. President Bush, as well as France and the United Kingdom, all backed a strong U.N. resolution calling for sanctions. It was the failure to get China and Russia on-board that scuttled the deal.

In that vein, diplomatic success would include being seen as the power behind any talks involving N. Korea. At this point, China, has begun to position itself as a major player. They certainly stood aside when N.K. tested its missile, but the only one hurt by that was the U.S. If future negotiations succeed in moving us forward, China could reap the rewards as the "arbiter" of any talks.

In Iran, the current standoff would likely be different if the administration had been more receptive to an Iranian offer to talk about its nuclear program several years ago. Iran was in a relatively progressive mood, and the U.S. was looking strong. Now, the military card is played out, the diplomats have all left the White House, Iran is back in a reactionary, nationalist mood and they will talk to us when they are good and ready. The Europeans, in fact, have been doing much of the necessary base-line work.

Two of the most dangerous nuclear wild cards on the planet have only grown bolder in the last several years, much of it because of the administration's complete disdain for diplomacy. The administration was not playing a subtle "waiting game", as some may have it.

Allowing your adversaries to increase the power of their arsenal. re-establish domestic political control, and wrest away a positive international diplomatic (and in both cases military) position does not count as success in anyone's book.

(There's also the entire continent of South America to think about as well as immigration across the Mexican border)

Let's be clear that name "Bush" is a placeholder for various factions exploiting him. The only foreign-policy goal Bush stated before the election was (privately, to the family biographer) invading Iraq. Bush has wishes, not policies.

The war types are short on ammo. The war-is-good-business guys want just the right amount of war (existing now) and not more. Some of the pols that hitched their wagons to this juggernaut are getting cold feet. And the military is saying "Whoa!"

Lacking a center, there is no organizing principle at work, only ad hoc maneuvers.

Ivo is dead on.

To me, the opposites in question are multilateralism and (American) exceptionalism.

Multilateralist are ready to surrender some aspects of our freedom of action in exchange of cooperations of other countries toward certain goals. Multilateralist diplomacy produces binding agreements and seeks actions in the framework limited by such agreements.

Exceptionalists are loath to restrict our freedom of action in any way, with a notable exception for trade agreements. Instead they promise that they will obtain cooperation of other countries through pressure, moral authority, "showing resolve" etc.

Obviously, the actual foreign policy has to proceed between the two extremes, but Bush steers very close to pure exceptionalism. An example among many: he refused to join an anti-land mine treaty, even though landmines are vastly more useful to our opponents -- as IEDs in Iraq exhibit. The idea is that we may wish to use landmines, so why restrict ourselves.

The quasi negotiations with Iran and North Korea are conducted in fully exceptionalist mode. Bush did not hint on even a single concession other than "we can think about it once they will comply". The idea of any treaty that would restrict our freedom of action is rejected a priori, so the only use of the negotiation is to apply pressure, on our adversaries as well as on other parties (so they would apply pressure).

Daalder -
[W]hat the administration is doing isn’t diplomacy — defined by the great British diplomat and historian, Harold Nicholson, “as the art of negotiating documents in a ratifiable and therefore dependable form.” Rather, what Bush is doing is just talk (or talking about talk). But diplomacy “is by no means the art of conversation,” Nicolson noted. “Diplomacy, if it is ever to be effective, should be a disagreeable business. And one recorded in hard print.”

How Manichaean. In the case of Nicolson the younger -- a notable diarist, biographer, historian and later, politician after a minor FO career -- Daalder mistakes junior attaché for diplomatic "great" artfully negotiating documents in a ratifiable and therefore dependable manner. Less disputed, Nicolson's regret over Versailles -- "the Treaties imposed upon our enemies were neither just nor wise" -- or conceivably, his renewed appreciation for equitable agreement before ratifiable hard print.

With neither force nor diplomacy, Bush is pursuing a foreign policy of empty gestures. The drift that characterizes Bush’s current foreign policy is ironic, for it was candidate George W. Bush who blasted the Clinton administration for pursuing a foreign policy that had led “our nation to move from crisis to crisis like a cork in a current.” The lesson, Bush then declared, was clear: “Unless a president sets his own priorities, his priorities will be set by others — by adversaries, or the crisis of the moment, live on CNN. American policy can become random and reactive — untethered to the interests of our country.”

It may be good politics to emphasize administration inertia; but in a crisis, it'd be disastrous diplomacy to categorically dismiss "Strong words here; a soothing telephone call and hasty meetings there"; particularly when an administration compels or instigates such crises.

Revised meme: the administration has handcuffed America's as well as its own ability to lead through initial and persistent subversion of multilateral norms, conventions, institutions in pursuit of unilateral objectives peddled as a "global war against terror" complicated by exceptionalism, profiteering, lawlessness & brazenly callous collateral disregard witness "With us or against us" because "we don't do body counts."

The interesting debate in the administration has always been different sets of hardliners rather than between hardliners and softliners, of whom there have been none since Powell left State.

Evidence February 2003, Powell was more softspiner than softliner. And the "debate", according to some, was often less about ideology than popularity, i.e., Powell v. Bush, hostages to while invested in their own poll ratings. OVP meanwhile, was fully and always ideologically committed. The biggest loser being Condi, who stood by while Powell was knifed; coveting State all along only to start from a grave made deeper by her own complicity.

"Israel has been willing to grant the Palestinians their own state yet the latter continues to state that it does not acknowledge Israel's existence. As long as they feel this way their arguments cannot be considered just."

Thought experiment: I come to your house, I kick you out of your house in a particularly brutal manner, then I say, "Hey, you can live over here in your dog's house as long as you recognize my right to your house."

Oh, you don't agree to do this? Well, your cause isn't "just", then.

Question: Can you name one neoconservative currently occupying a senior position (undersecretary or above) in the Bush administration? As for whether the Bush folks listen to other people, take a look at the lead story in today's papers.

Ivo Daalder

Who says realist can't be fuck-ups?

referred

TH

From a moral standpoint you are correct. Israel does not deserve the land they occupy and their method of taking it back (the Zionist movement) was little other than racketeering on the part of influential Jews who courted the British (then American) government.

But the "new" Israel has existed for over a half century now and they are far more wealthy and technologically advanced than are their Palestinian counterparts. In short, they're not going anywhere anytime soon. Even if their existence is immoral, hating the pre-eminent regional power only serves to destabalize the world even more. At some point everyone must agree that Israel, love it or hate it, exists and it will continue to exist.

In all honesty I think Israel has been relatively gentle on the Palestinians. They could have wiped them out completely in the 60's had the West not intervened...

"At some point everyone must agree that Israel, love it or hate it, exists and it will continue to exist.'

Iran was going to negotiate that in 2003 - and got told to buzz off by the neocons, specifically Dick Cheney.

I agree that the Jewish population in Israel could and should be accepted as a given by the Palestinians - and so should the numerically superior Palestinians. The Israeli Zionist STATE, on the other hand, should not be - which is exactly what Iran's President was complaining about when he was misquoted about "wiping them off the map." And the fact that the Zionists have made it crystal clear that they do NOT intend to accept the presence of Palestinians in anything other than a prison as acceptable to them makes it equally clear that blame lies on both sides.

"In all honesty I think Israel has been relatively gentle on the Palestinians. They could have wiped them out completely in the 60's had the West not intervened..."

I rather doubt the fact that the Israelis do need to pay SOME lip service to the international community exactly makes them "gentle" in their behavior.

The current situation is clearly NOT "gentle" and is getting worse by the hour.

I see it as all posturing and part of the BushCo response to loss of public support and upcoming elections. "...empty gestures" is apt.
EVERYTHING they do is political. They've been trying to drum up support for the war again, suddenly discovering "terrorists", saying there will be no more no-bid Halliburton contracts, saying they respect the Supreme Court and will honor Geneva (but of course they say they have all along), and "SEE, we're even willing to negotiate" with adversaries. It's all bullshit.