THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VIII, Issue # 100, June 11, 2006
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
BUBBA DUBYA? A CURIOUSLY CLINTONIAN TURN
IN UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY
By Dr. Michael Rubin
UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY & THE BUSH II PRESIDENCY: REVERSING THE COURSE OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY --
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WHILE STILL SPEAKING ABOUT OPPOSING NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION, SPREADING
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY & PROSECUTING THE WAR AGAINST ISLAMIST TERRFORISM, INCREASINGLY CHARTS THE
PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE & PAPER COMPROMISE SO DOMINANT DURING THE PRESIDENCY OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON
CLINTON -- SEEKING TO PLEASE DIPLOMATS & OTHER INTERNATIONALIST-MINDED BUREAUCRATS, WHILE JEOPARDIZING
AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY
FULL STORY:
On September 20, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush put the world on notice:
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Unanimously, U.S. Senators and Congressmen gave President Bush a standing ovation.
Now, faced with falling poll numbers, and wanting the affirmation of the foreign policy elite here and abroad -- from the Quai
d'Orsay to Auswärtiges Amt and Turtle Bay -- the President seems to have reversed course. He still speaks about democracy
and the war against terror, but increasingly his administration charts the path of least resistance and paper compromise so
dominant during the Clinton years. This may please diplomats, but it does not ensure U.S. national security. It's déjà vu all
over again in the White House.
REVIVING THE NORTH KOREA MODEL
On May 31, 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reversed U.S. policy toward Iran: "We are agreed with our European
partners on the essential elements of a package containing both the benefits, if Iran makes the right choice, and costs, if it does
not."
Her announcement delighted European diplomats and validated former Clinton administration officials. An April 26, 2006,
statement signed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and five European former foreign ministers had advised: "We
believe that the Bush administration should pursue a policy it has shunned for many years: attempt to negotiate directly with
Iranian leaders about their nuclear program." Sandy Berger, Clinton's second-term National Security Adviser, applauded the
move: "[Rice] has done a very effective job in the last year and a half of consolidating foreign policy back in the State
Department." To Albright and Berger, 1990s-style diplomacy, with its emphasis on multilateralism and consensus over
substance, is an end in itself.
In the wake of Rice's announcement, senior U.S. diplomats and European officials speaking on background outlined the
proposed carrots and sticks: If Tehran promises to suspend uranium enrichment, sits down and talks, it will receive light water
nuclear reactors. If Tehran refuses to talk, Europe, Russia, and perhaps even China will discuss sanctions at the UN Security
Council. There is no consensus about what these sanctions would constitute, nor is there a timeline. Just two days after Rice's
concession, her Russian counterpart hinted at just how flaccid the proposed sticks were. Speaking in Vienna, Sergei Lavrov
commented: "I can say unambiguously that all the agreements from yesterday's meetings rule out in any circumstances the use
of military force."
Precedent gives little ground for optimism. What Bush offered Tehran mirrors what Clinton gave Pyongyang. On October 21,
1994, Ambassador Robert L. Gallucci signed the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework. In exchange for a freeze of the Stalinist
dictatorship's nuclear program, Washington offered to supply Pyongyang with two light water nuclear reactors and a basket of
additional incentives. Clinton explained:
"North Korea will freeze and dismantle its nuclear program.
South Korea and our allies will be better protected. The
entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear
weapons."
But North Korea did not freeze its nuclear program, and the world did not become safer. In 1998, Pyongyang signaled its renewed
belligerence when it launched a nuclear-capable Taepodong-1 missile over Japan. It continued to enrich uranium and later
withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The Central Intelligence Agency now estimates North Korea has a couple of
bombs; the Stalinist state claims to have more. The idea that Clinton's deal was a success is revisionist nonsense. It is a model
only for the triumph of appearance over substance. Kim Jong Il played Clinton; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is playing Bush.
TERROR TRAINING CAMPS
It is not just the actions of the Bush administration that recall the Clinton years, but also the inaction. The Clinton administration
knew that Afghanistan played host to terror training camps. The 9-11 Commission detailed the Clinton administration's decision
to trust diplomacy. A declassified December 8, 1997, State Department cable detailed high-level talks between Assistant Secretary
of State Karl F. Inderfurth and a Taliban delegation. The Taliban promised to "keep their commitment and not allow Osama bin
Ladin and others to use Afghanistan as a base for terrorism." The State Department lauded its own success: "We believe our
message . . . came through loud and clear." It didn't.
On August 7, 1998, Al-Qa'ida attacked the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Thirteen days later, Clinton ordered a
retaliatory missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and on Zhawar Kili, a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
International reaction was tepid at best. While British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood by Clinton, most European allies were
lukewarm. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed "concern" and the Kremlin denounced U.S. actions.
Clinton valued international affirmation. The symbolic Tomahawk strike complete, he sought to assuage allies with renewed
commitment to international multilateral diplomacy. Both Clinton and the Taliban reverted to business as usual. Sensing
weakness, Al-Qa'ida accelerated its training program. In March, 2000, I spent three weeks in the Taliban's Afghanistan. In Kabul,
shopkeepers described meeting Arabs and Filipinos training for Jihad. While the Taliban denied hosting terror training camps,
residents near Rishkhor, a camp just a few kilometers from Kabul, spoke of continued activity. Eighteen months later, graduates
from Afghan camps like these brought down the World Trade Center.
Today, the location is different, but the White House's desire to turn a blind eye is the same. In the 1990s, Afghanistan was a
forgotten backwater; this decade, it is Somalia. Terrorists love a vacuum. On June 5, 2006, the Islamic Courts Union, an Islamist
group affiliated with Al-Qa'ida, seized Mogadishu, Somalia's capital. Both journalists and policymakers were underwhelmed.
Perhaps, some mused, this radical Islamist gang could restore order. Reporting was similarly blasé when the Taliban seized
Kabul just under a decade ago.
The Islamic Courts Union and the terrorist threat they pose did not materialize out of thin air; rather, they are a product of Bush
administration neglect. Somalis living in Mogadishu speak of terrorist training camps established in the Lower Juba region,
along the Kenyan border. According to Somali officials, the camps are not indigenous, but are run by Palestinians and Syrians.
Senior U.S. military officials acknowledge the growing Al-Qa'ida presence, but say they are forbidden to intervene. Not only has
the Bush administration long nixed U.S. military action against terror training camps, but now also forbids the U.S. military from
filling the vacuum in still stable regions of the country, such as Somaliland and Puntland.
As the Bush administration wishes the problem away, rich Saudi and Persian Gulf financiers work to consolidate the region as a
Jihadist base. While Clinton did little to stop the capital flow from Gulf Arab sheikhs into the Taliban's Afghanistan, today the
Bush team ignores the almost daily flights from Dubai to the Somali airfield at Baledogle, about 70 miles northwest of Mogadishu.
Here, chartered jets bring men and materiel for Al-Qa'ida affiliate Al-Ittihad al-Islami and the Taliban-like Islamic Courts Union,
which is slowly consolidating its control over Mogadishu.
CLINTON REDUX
In 1993, Bill Clinton came to the White House without foreign policy experience. He followed the advice of professional diplomats
and, for eight years, did what was shortterm popular, but longterm unwise.
He trusted U.S. security to the goodwill of international organizations. The intellectual elite applauded, even as Saddam Hussein,
for example, exploited the United Nations for financial gain, the European Union funded Palestinian terrorists, and Iran developed
secret nuclear facilities under the nose of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
He let public opinion polls determine national security. After a disastrous October 3, 1993, raid in Mogadishu, he ordered U.S.
troops to evacuate the country, mission incomplete, a key factor, Osama bin Ladin later said, in bolstering Al-Qa'ida's confidence.
Bush's recent about-face also seems driven more by public relations than strategy. Bush administration figures once said they
would not replicate Clinton's mistakes. On March 18, 2004, Rice told CNN interviewer John King that a proper U.S. response to
9-11 was "an American strategy that is bold and decisive and takes the fight to [the terrorists]" and not Clinton's laid-back,
law-enforcement approach that "led to September 11." Four days later, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated the message and
then, on March 23, 2004, so did U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Today, the Bush administration is in full retreat from that high ground. The Iranian President can threaten war, but, if nuclear
reactors are what it takes to get the United Nations to promise to consider whether to discuss talking about the possibility of
taking action, then Bush is willing to agree. Meanwhile, authorities in Turkey complain that Central Intelligence Agency officers
meet with representatives from Kurdish terrorist groups, former CIA officers meet with Hezbollah, and the State Department
plays a shell game with Hamas, withholding money on one hand, but dispensing the same funds through the United Nations
Refugee Works Administration with the other. Rice now even hints at scaling back U.S. opposition to the International Criminal
Court. Like Clinton before him, Bush is being tempted by the siren song of international peer affirmation.
During his September 20, 2001, speech before the joint session of Congress, Bush declared, "We will not tire, we will not falter,
and we will not fail." Increasingly, though, the administration seems to be tiring and faltering. And, if it retreats to the policies
that led to 9-11, it will fail.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Military Weaponry & International Security:
Weapons of Mass Destruction & Arms Control
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Michael Rubin, a Ph.D. in History (Yale University) and a specialist in Middle Eastern politics, Islamic culture and Islamist
ideology, is Editor of the Middle East Quarterly and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. Dr Rubin is author of Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami's Iran (Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, 2001) and is co-author, with Dr. Patrick Clawson, of Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005). Dr. Rubin served as political advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad (2003-2004); staff
advisor on Iran and Iraq in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense (2002-2004); visiting lecturer in the Departments of
History and International Relations at Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2001-2002); visiting lecturer at the Universities of
Sulaymani, Salahuddin, and Duhok in Iraqi Kurdistan (2000-2001); Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (1999-2000); and visiting lecturer in the Department of History at Yale University (1999-2000). He has been a fellow at
the Council of Foreign Relations, the Leonard Davis Institute at Hebrew University, and the Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs.
The foregoing article by Dr. Michael Rubin was originally published in the Weekly Standard, June 19, 2006, and can be
found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum.
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
June 11, 2006
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VIII, 2006
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues