In Reagan's Footsteps: Europe decides that Bush may be right after all

Post-9/11 Era Forum

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Friday, February 25, 2005


Visits by U.S. Presidents to Europe tend to have a template-making quality: Wilson, the peace maker, in Paris, 1919; Truman, the victor, at Potsdam, 1945; Kennedy, the stalwart, in Berlin, 1963; Reagan, the visionary, in Berlin, 1987. If President Bush's trip this week has some kind of new theme, the word for it is probably conciliation. But our sense is that Mr. Bush is really following in Reagan's footsteps.

Admittedly, this thought is not original: Der Spiegel beat us to it. Still, it says something that the leftish German newsweekly, which two years ago devoted an entire cover story to advancing the "Blood for Oil" thesis about U.S. ambitions in the Middle East, has gingerly raised the question, "Could Bush Be Right?"

"The Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy," Der Spiegel writes. "When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this Wall,' he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. . . . But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicans who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."

It is doubtful that Der Spiegel would have made these observations had Mr. Bush's visit taken place just before Iraq's election rather than just after. And we suspect most of the magazine's editors would dearly have preferred to see a President Kerry.

But events have a way of imposing both discipline and clarity. For much of Europe, the idea that President Bush is the real and legitimate face of America came a few years late. But it has come, as has the realization that a hopeful era is dawning in the Middle East thanks to U.S. "unilateralism" and force of arms. In this sense, the purpose of Mr. Bush's trip isn't to present himself anew to Europe. It is to allow European leaders--France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and Russia's Vladimir Putin--to present themselves anew to Mr. Bush.

Partly this reflects political facts: Contrary to expectation a year ago (and with the qualified exception of Spain), the leaders who supported the war in Iraq have all been returned to office, while Messrs. Chirac, Putin and Schroeder languish in polls.

Partly, too, it reflects the realities of power. Europe, collectively and in its several parts, requires a functioning relationship with the U.S. to secure its vital interests. The same cannot be said of America's requirements of Europe. President Bush was gracious when he acknowledged the willingness of Germany and France to contribute to the training of Iraqi policemen. But the one (yes, one) French officer now detailed to the task will probably not turn the tide of war.

Probably the most important component is that President Bush's vision of spreading democracy--of getting to the "tipping point" where tyrannies start to crumble--seems not only to be working but also winning some unexpected converts. Just ask the Lebanese who are suddenly restive under Syrian occupation. As a result, European politicians are in a poorer position to lecture this President about the true ways of the world.

This isn't to say that Mr. Bush can or should be indifferent to the attitudes of his European counterparts. They have agreed to put differences about Iraq behind them, which is good. The U.S., France and Germany also seem to be reasonably united in their concern about Russia's imperial pretensions and attenuated civil liberties. But potentially larger differences loom before them, above all over the nuclearization of Iran and the lifting of the post-Tiananmen arms embargo to China.

In each case, fundamental U.S. strategic interests--the security of Taiwan and Israel; the sovereignty of Iraq; naval supremacy in the Persian Gulf--stand at odds either with European commercial interests or ideological hobbyhorses (the French infatuation with "multipolarity"). If smoother diplomacy, both public and private, can avert another Iraq-style eruption without compromising U.S. interests, so much the better.

Then again, if Europe continues to demand a high price for its political favors, the Bush Administration would do well to shop for partners and ad hoc coalitions elsewhere. America's cultural links to Europe may be precious, but there is no law of nature or history that requires both sides of the Atlantic to act in concert. To the extent that Europeans continue to value the relationship, it is up to them to demonstrate it, chiefly by not acting as freelancers or spoilers in areas of vital U.S. concern.

Still, there are reasons to be sanguine about the future of trans-Atlantic relations. We are in no doubt that most European hearts thrilled to the sight of Iraqi voters going to the polls last month, suggesting that, whatever Europe and America's political or ideological differences, we remain alike in our innermost values and aspirations. Nor do we believe our world views are so divided that persuasion and compromise are impossible. Pundits may differ as to whether Mr. Bush and his European counterparts planted the seeds for a better relationship. What's sure is that they were planting on fertile soil.

I wonder how those meetings with Dubbs went... "Hey Chirac, Schroeder, Putin- don't ya know how much money we can make here? Yeeeeeeeeeeeee-haw! Don't mess with Texas."

-HECK!

HECK, that hurt?

Hurt? Inane opinion from The Wall Street Journal? Nope.

Just makes me wonder, it's obvious that you think you're correct on all things political, why post article after article... unless you're still trying to convince yourself. Do we see a kink in the armor? Say it ain't so...

-HECK!

Shucks, and I was hoping for a link or a picture. Just smilies? Now you're just not trying anymore

-HECK!

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0895260174.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Next…?

Bush coming in Europe and being welcomed by the europeans corresponds to the expression of a mutual interest.
The Bush admin knows the european allies are needed in a lot of matters, particularly economically and diplomatically. The europeans know that those around Bush pushing to a rapprochement with long standing allies alienated during the Iraq war clash, might be outnumbered by others willing to promote unilateralism whatever the consequences may be. So it's better to encourage this new foreign policy, rather than keeping to blame Bush.
But deep divergences remain, and notably about Iraq.

President Bush's nomination of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as the next president of the World Bank was met with much surprise, little enthusiasm and some outright opposition in Europe, where he is best known as a leading proponent of a conflict deeply unpopular there, the Iraq war.

Oops, the Europissts don't approve. Now what?

Shocking.

But more importantly, relevant.

Wolfowitz president of the world bank .... yeah it is the cherry on the cake. While we are at it, Curley, are you the next chief of the CIA ? Who knows .... the US is decidedly going nowhere ....

Whatever happened to the recent supposition of Bono being the president of the World Bank?

I knew there was a reason his lyrics have gone stale lately.

"The recommendation is devastating," said Michael Mueller, deputy leader of German Social Democrats. With Wolfowitz at the helm of the World Bank, there would be "a militarization of thinking" which would lead to "oppression and hegemony" through the World Bank's policies, Mueller said. Mueller called on European leaders to try their best to block the nomination.


Ohhh, I love it! I just absolutely love it!


"God help me, I do love it so!" —General George S. Patton

Never has might made right. Not once in the history of man. Is Bush victorious? Of course he is... was there ever any doubt that his advanced weaponry and economic/technological might would allow him to push his adgenda through?

The question is though was any of it right? Those of us who have been staunchly anti war percieve a world in which the decisions of the U.N and the World Court have more sway than the interests of an individual nation... a unified world in which regional disputes can be resolved through diplomatic means.

For the time being the seismic shift to the right in the U.S.A represents a determined obstacle to such concepts.

I believe, strongly that it is in every nations best interests {long term} to approach the cultural/political/religious structures and organization of other nations within a framework of non-interference. A truly free world is one in which we allow our neighbours to discover their own paths in their own way.

If we in the west believe our societies to be a better way to live... the best way of influencing others is by enjoying our lifestyle and not marching towards forced conversion.

A multi-cultural... multi-lateral world in which representatives from different points of view can share ideas and resolve disputes is the purpose of the U.N. . I for one would just like to see this intitution recognized and listened to more { and not just when it is convenient}.

I guess an importan question is.. where should the power globally, lie? In the hands of one nation or in a body designed to provide a voice for all!

Transcript: Bush's Radio Address
Saturday, March 19, 2005

Good morning.

On this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from a grave danger.

Before coalition forces arrived, Iraq was ruled by a dictatorship that murdered its own citizens, threatened its neighbors, and defied the world. We knew of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew of his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction, and we know that September the 11th requires our country to think differently. We must, and we will, confront threats to America before they fully materialize.

Now, because we acted, Iraq's government is no longer a threat to the world or its own people. Today the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny. In January, over eight million Iraqis defied the car bombers and assassins to vote in free elections. This week, Iraq's Transitional National Assembly convened for the first time. These elected leaders broadly represent Iraq's people and include more than 85 women. They will now draft a new constitution for a free and democratic Iraq. In October, that document will be presented to the Iraqi people in a national referendum. Another election is planned for December to choose a permanent constitutional government.


Free governments reflect the culture of the citizens they serve, and that is happening in Iraq. Today, Iraqis can take pride in building a government that answers to its people and honors their country's unique heritage. Millions of Americans saw that pride in an Iraqi woman named Safia Taleb al-Suhail who sat in the gallery during the State of the Union address. Eleven years ago, Saddam Hussein's thugs murdered her father. Today, Safia's nation is free, and Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell. Safia expressed the gratitude of the Iraqi nation when she embraced the mom of Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood who was killed in the assault on Fallujah.

To all the brave members of our Armed Forces who have taken part in this historic mission, and to your families, I express the heartfelt thanks of the American people. I know that nothing can end the pain of the families who have lost loved ones in this struggle, but they can know that their sacrifice has added to America's security and the freedom of the world.

Iraq's progress toward political freedom has opened a new phase of our work there. We are focusing our efforts on training the Iraqi security forces. As they become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly assume a supporting role. In the end, Iraqis must be able to defend their own country, and we will help that proud, new nation secure its liberty. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Today we're seeing hopeful signs across the broader Middle East. The victory of freedom in Iraq is strengthening a new ally in the war on terror, and inspiring democratic reformers from Beirut to Tehran. Today, women can vote in Afghanistan, Palestinians are breaking the old patterns of violence, and hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are rising up to demand their sovereignty and democratic rights. These are landmark events in the history of freedom. Only the fire of liberty can purge the ideologies of murder by offering hope to those who yearn to live free.

The experience of recent years has taught us an important lesson: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. Because of our actions, freedom is taking root in Iraq, and the American people are more secure.

Thank you for listening.
___



No. Thank YOU, Mr President…

So long as we force a nation at gun point we will never convince them that democracy is a better way of life.

Bombings will continue sadly and the bombers will be labeled terrorists.......

The neo-cons have their world order well under way...

How do you reason with a mob of citizenry content to rah rah cheer Bush and not question his methods?

It's weird, I never thought that the values those of us who grew up in North America with would change so much.

Innocent until proven gullty; burden of proof; the Geneva Conventions; and the duty to question your leaders... I always thought that some on the left were being paranoid when they would declare that the right was out to curtail and/ or eliminate these concepts.

Does 9-11 truly justify .... anything the right wishes to pursue?

Will we be leaving to our children a world in which they are taught to conform and follow rather than question and explore?

By studies made post Bush's election victory there seems to be a growing a disturbing gulf between the educated socially aware and the vast crop of lower income poorly educated recruits for never ending war efforts.

Is this merely a question of democracy in action? Do the right wing voters in the red states ... middle america ... represent the majority?

If so .. then they are indeed getting the leadership they want.

But.. it begs the queston ... why is it that those in the blue states ... and in so many nations around the world see things so very different?

Can both sides truly think they want what is best and yet be so polar opposite in what they believe that is?

....

Here is a question for you Curley Joe... what common ground can be found between social liberals and social conservatives?

Can both sides work together or will we see a never ending series of swings depending on which side is in power?

If that is the case we are telling people that their ideals that were held in high esteem yesterday.. are of little use today.. but hey might be back in vogue tomorrow...... huh?

What a way to build a future..............

As far as I'm concerned the opening post pretty much says it all. All the fat rhetoric surrounding the facts is a waste of my time.

Sorry to waste your time CJ... guess Ya didn't even bother to read my question.... although from your signature/tagline I can see why.

War is an ugly thing,

Indeeed it is.

but not the ugliest of things .

Of course it is. Harming our fellow human beings is the evil that we do. Whether it be a simple assault, a murder or a full scale war. The difference is in degree... I would argue that that which causes the most death and destruction is that which is the ugliest most evil thing we can do... and that would be war. The only just war is one of self defense or defense of an ally { provided said ally didn't instigate it} . If we all were to adopt this doctrine then no wars would be fought.

The decayed and degraded state of moral feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

Self serving rhetoric the likes of which every warmonger has used to incite the mobs to do their bloody bidding. Hitler was particularily adept at this, most evil men are. Any state of mind that allows you to pursue every possible avenue in order to resolve international disputes cannot reasonably be described as decayed or degraded. It is the fearmongering and bullying of those that are weaker that demonstrates a decayed moral fibre.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Those who have struggled against the policies of Bush and his cronies are willing to fight for what they believe in ... it is simply a different set of values than the neo-cons have. Instead of power and security being their motivation .. tolerance and humanity are their bedrock. The man who is willing to work hard for peace is a far better man than the one who merely wishes to destroy his enemies.

The experience of recent years has taught us an important lesson: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.

The simplicity of the undeniable truth is beautiful to behold.

Rowdyrjp
I appreciate your post that I understand as the contribution of an educated and sensible person.
Believe me you will have a hard time trying to discuss with Curley about these issues ... he has a cealed mind.

What changed the climate in the Middle East was not just the U.S. invasion and show of arms. It was U.S. determination and staying power, and the refusal of its people last November to turn out a President who rejected an "exit strategy" but pledged instead to remain until Iraqi self-governance was secure.

It took this marriage of power, will and principle to produce the astonishing developments in the Middle East today.

—Charles Krauthammer


So as one can plainly see, what Europissts (and Canadians alike) have to say about American policy and American resolve is completely irrelevant. In fact, truth be told, the more severe their convulsions the more we nod in satisfaction in knowing that we are finally on the right track.

Now, keep pounding…

Keep pounding Curley. Keep spewing your propaganda ...

Curley.. Curley ... Curley..

What unique and significant change has occurred in the middle east?

Surely you do not believe that the imposition of a foreign puppet gov't on the Iraqis will somehow alter the middle east for all time?

Check your history, this is not the first time that powerful nations have come into middle eastern countries and through money and force imposed their will upon the Arabs. Sadly this is a pattern empires have employed against this region for centuries.

Sometimes the changes are economic; sometimes religious; sometimes political... often the changes are a combination of all three. THE POINT IS regardless of what if any potential benefits may arise from these forced accommodations they are rebelled against and eventually overthrown ... sometimes replaced with something much worse.

Case in point.. would the Baath party have come to power if Iraq had not been so much under the thumb of British interests? Quite often when a people feel oppressed they will turn to the strongest among them to fight and lead. The sentiment being that ... well such a person may be a thug but hey at least he is our thug....... This is how men like Saddam get into power and how they keep it.

You want a real formula for changing the world.. stop interfering where you are not wanted! By allowing nations the ability to chart their own course we ensure a vital and diverse global multiculturalism in which all societies can share and grow and learn from each others examples.

The true test of the "so called " superiority of western society would be to live full and rich lives. If we are not percieved as ramming guns down their throats then they { other nations.. ie) Iraq, Korea etc.} can decide for themselves if we have ideas they might be interested in.

I say it again .. what keeps a thug in power is the real or perceived need of his services. Look at the USA presidential race your nation has been told by its leaders of dire threats to its security ... this mobilizes the public to support the perceived "strength" of the neo-cons as a necessary evil. Imean they made be fanatical religious cowboys but .. at least they are their fanatical religious cowboys.............

No replies when presented with a reasonable but differring point of view, Curley?

The last refuge of the misled and misinformed is to rail at ctrics and not their arguments.

Please refer to posts #1, #18 and #23—they should suffice to answer all immediate lingering questions that still may plague an anti-U.S. foreigner. If not, please be patient and stay tuned, I will have more by-and-by. Also, feel free to visit the Iraq forum. Much information is available there. Thank you.

I'll play.

Ironically, the same protesters who will be cursing this war of liberation, this president, and this country's troops are many of the same forces who opposed Reagan's liberation efforts in Central America and Europe. They convulsed in protest when Reagan dared to call nuclear weapons deployed to Western Europe the "peacekeepers." Millions marched in the streets and predicted Reagan's actions would destroy US alliances with Europe and lead to WWIII.

Sound familiar???

Is there any doubt that if these liberals had their way, Communists would still be ruling tens of millions in Central America and hundreds of millions in Eastern Europe and Russia? Of course not.

Sayzak: That's human nature... but it doesn't always happen. In Iraq, the people didn't rebel and Saddam got away with years of his abuse.

The Shiites did in fact rebel in their thousands in and after 91 and I'm sure for years after that. Thats where many of the graves come from - Hussein putting down the insurgency.

Time will tell [if things get better in Iraq]

Of course things could get better in Iraq and I hope they do. But Iraq as it is today is not part of the neocon plan. The US military lost control of Iraq shortly after they disbanded the Iraqi army - ever heard of the one area in Iraq that's only partially safe for US personel, the green zone? Since then pressure has been coming from Sistani's group, who in the election won the majority of votes.

The neocon plan was first, install Chalabi, when that went belly-up, they tried to push Allawi. Because these two failed to gain power, they cannot now continue their plan, which was - and just read some of the laws Bremmer tried to implement - to open up Iraq to a neo-liberal form of capitalism where corporations could move in and clean up, have US control in the background, and of course install the US military bases at the heart of Middle East. The Iraqis (especially the Shiites) were smart enough to see this happening.

Bremmer order #39 allowed for the following:
(1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises
(2) 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms (thats our law not Iraq's)
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds
(5) 40-year ownership licenses.

This is a moral debate as much as it is about the facts.

Fact: Saddam is a Terrorist who had no regaurd for human life, especially that of his own people and his neighbors.

He was not a terrorist. He was a dictator. Dictators exist all over the world and many, especially those that protect our strategic interests, we continue to support. We have a history of overthrowing democracies we don't like and installing dictators who will do our bidding. Iran to name but one. There's no morality here. It's pure business, self interest and security.

Moral conflict: Is it worth human life to go to war?

Fact: We are at war with Terrorists. Saddam = Terrorist.

Terrorists like Bin Laden are fantical religious terrorists. Hussein was a brutal tinpot dictator. Getting them mixed up was all part of the propoganda Bush pushed.

Moral confolict: Is it worth using every justification possible to make sure we remove him from office?

Fact: A free Iraq is a sign of hope for freedom and democracy in the middle east.

I agree with you, and if this happens then this it's good, but we can't decide for other countries what democracy they chose as the neocons wanted. Do we have any right to do anything if Iraq lerches towards fundamentalism?

Moral Conflict: Why should we care?

Fact: Terroists typically come from the middle east.

There's terrorism going on all over the world. Thinking all terrorism is religious, Islamic, Middle Eastern is getting things mixed up and all to do with the propoganda that Bush has been pushing.

What fun

USA = support for middle eastern dictatorships = 3000 dead Americans. Nuff said

Regarding every middle eastern nation as the same is preposterous......

Is Mexico the same as Canada?

Is Egypt the same as South Africa?

Is Nepal the same as China?

Is Italy the same as England?

Open your eyes, prejudice and racial intolerance are a cancer that eats at your soul.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/zete_tic2/john-johnandteresav4.jpg

Maybe Iraqi's will have social security, at least...

-HECK!