The Root of Evil

With Iraq a shambles, North Korean testing a nuclear device, and Iran pursuing uranium enrichment, The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker revisit the "axis of evil" speech. They underplay, however, the extent to which the speech isn't merely an ironic reminder of what a bad president Bush is, but was actually constitutive of Bushian badness. Usually, a speech is just a speech, but this was an exception. At the time, it was widely understood that the administration was contemplating a war to depose Saddam Hussein. Under the circumstances, lumping Iran and the DPRK in with Iraq as an "axis of evil" played as a weirdly diffuse and nonspecific threat to overthrow the governments in Teheran and Pyongyang. A threat that we had no capacity to carry out in the short term. This precipatated the recent round of nuclear crisis in North Korea and managed to undermine some then-ongoing cooperation with Iran on Taliban and al-Qaeda issues that stood some chance of leading to a broader rapprochment.

What's more, as "axis of evil" apologists like Michael Rubin make clear, plunging the world into crisis and closing off diplomatic options was part of the plan. "Clinton administration attempts to engage the Taliban and the North Korean regime were folly. Any attempt to do likewise with Iran would be equally inane. Certain regimes cannot be appeased." And, clearly, it's true that some men you just can't reach, but why should we think this phenomenon has suddenly become so widespread? And why not try? The Clinton administration's efforts to pursuade the Taliban to give up Osama bin Laden didn't work, but it was surely worth a shot, especially at a time when full-fledged war just wasn't on the table as an option.

If it comes to war in the end, then good-faith efforts to resolve outstanding issues without war are integral to giving the war legitimacy. In the North Korean case, Clinton's policy was working pretty damn well. It led to a non-ideal outcome, but things got much worse when we tried things Bush's way. Cooperating with Iran, similarly, was paying dividends until we stopped trying it. Similarly, we reached a perfectly reasonable negotiated settlement with Libya even under Bush. It's regime change as panacea that's worked really, really, really poorly. It'd be nice if this worked -- snap your fingers and get a better regime -- but it doesn't work, and not seeing that is just dumb.

Comments

What's more, as "axis of evil" apologists like Michael Rubin make clear, plunging the world into crisis and closing off diplomatic options was part of the plan.

I think aside from macho bullshit, there's still a reason that the Bush administration pursues this "only on our terms" approach to foreign policy: it keeps them from having to make difficult choices.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 10, 2006 11:24 AM

not seeing that is just dumb

People like Rubin are paid to be idiots. If they weren't willing to be stupid, and in public, they'd be out of a job.

The point is that we don't need a better, or smarter, or more honest set of pundits. It's true there are better and smarter and more honest people on every square foot of this planet. But they'll never be hired by Rubin's employers, and MSNBC will never put them on air.

Posted by grh | October 10, 2006 11:35 AM

"At the time, it was widely understood that the administration was contemplating a war to depose Saddam Hussein."

Contemplating in the same way that I'm contemplating taking my next breath.

Posted by daveNYC | October 10, 2006 12:24 PM

This is all well and good, but I fail to see how diplomacy is going to yield any televised tyrant-statue-pulldowns, which are the real measure of foreign policy success.

Posted by sglover | October 10, 2006 1:59 PM

If it comes to war in the end, then good-faith efforts to resolve outstanding issues without war are integral to giving the war legitimacy.

This assumes that all parties to the discussion acknowledge that war ever has legitimacy as an option. That pretty much excludes the modern American Left. Trying diplomacy first is not only customary, it is advantageous. If one posits, going in, however, that there is always another diplomatic angle to try before resorting to arms, the effort becomes tautological and the other side knows this and acts accordingly. If we cannot threaten military consequences, in good faith, the other side has no reason to speak to us in good faith as it gains them nothing.

Engaging an opponent in talks is only sensible if a rationally defensible and objectively defineable end-point to non-military diplomatic efforts can be extablished and agreed upon - by those on our side - beyond which it is understood that "diplomacy" - however defined - has, indeed, failed. The modern Left will not accept such definitions of finity because it refuses to acknowledge that such points exist.

Concomitantly, the Left utterly rejects the proposition that sometimes there is no resort but force to settle an issue of sufficient gravity. Perversely, the Left - or portions of it, anyway - will sometimes approve a military intervention but only if it is first thoroughly scrubbed of any faintest taint of advancement of national interests. Even then, the Left is entirely likely to bail out the minute it actualy becomes necessary to, you know, kill some people. The Balkan interventions come to mind. The Left was for them before it was against them. As soon as actual irredentist Serbs had to be killed, the bloom was off the rose. The Left's view of acceptable military intervention seems to be somewhere between bloodless training maneuvers and a Memorial Day parade. We can march in in our nice uniforms and take up positions, but actual fighting? Too icky. Can't have that.

Posted by Dick Eagleson | October 10, 2006 4:39 PM

Mr. Eagleson gives a good example of the kind of faux-realistic, pseudo-hardheaded armchair warrior logic that has been infesting pundit talk for the past few years. The truth is, if one actually understands and has knowledge of real modern (post-WWII) military history, it is extremely difficult to think of a case where warfare would significantly assist the national interests of the United States, and all too easy to think of cases where warfare would seriously harm us. The position he ascribes to the left is thus rooted in clear analysis of the interests of the United States. The desire to resort to warfare is generally rooted in a kind of wooly-headed romantic longing to engage in fun battles like the kind you read about in military history books.

And by the way, warfare is very different than killing people. Nobody on the non-crazy left has any objection at all to e.g. killing Osama Bin Laden or his lieutenants, and nobody on the non-crazy left had any objection to invading Afghanistan for that purpose. But full scale warfare -- taking on an entire society with the massive civilian casualties that invariably result, the lasting bitterness it causes, the various forms of blowback that occur, the expense -- has most of the time been a losing proposition for advanced nations since WWII. It will become ever more a losing proposition as weaponry becomes cheaper and more destructive. Avoiding warfare is thus a hard headed and sensible position for those societies with the most to lose (like us). In contrast, Mr. Eagleson's position that warfare is a useful and important tool for a nation like the U.S. in this era, is a wooly-headed, sentimental and unsupported one that is generally rooted in the armchair warriors affection for warfare for its own sake. Because it's fun, like the movies.

Posted by MQ | October 10, 2006 5:56 PM

Dick Eagleson, there you go again, defining us all out of the modern American Left. It is easy to demolish arguments almost nobody believes in except Vietnam-era acid-droppers.

So, how many on the "Left" supported taking down the Taliban?

If one posits, going in, however, that there is always another diplomatic angle to try before resorting to arms, the effort becomes tautological and the other side knows this and acts accordingly. If we cannot threaten military consequences, in good faith, the other side has no reason to speak to us in good faith as it gains them nothing.

I really doubt we are in danger of being seen as squeamish pacifists by other states. We are in severe danger, however, of being seen as a nation that treats international statesmanship like the touching of gloves before a bare-knuckle slugging match.

If we have bad faith, its not about our eagerness to deliver on our promises to raise military hell. Our bad faith is in conducting real diplomacy.

Posted by StJoe | October 10, 2006 5:56 PM

Still an ignorant slut, I see, Dick.

Posted by Walt | October 10, 2006 5:57 PM

like the touching of gloves before a bare-knuckle slugging match.
Uh... I suppose I blew that metaphor. Make that a regular boxing match, or get rid of the gloves...

Posted by StJoe | October 10, 2006 6:01 PM