State of the Union Address and the Burning Bush doctrine

I considered calling this post "Details? We don't need no stinking details." Recall that Dan Bartlett, White House counsel, told the Washington Post that the State of the Union Address would offer details as to how the Burning Bush doctrine would be accomplished. After reading the transcript of the State of the Union Address, what I noticed was an utter lack of any such details.

I will quote excerpts from the speech and make comments as I go. The first excerpt was spoken very early in the speech:

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world.

This was a good start...sort of. He did say he would set forth policies, but look at the previous sentence. Bush said that the Inaugural Address was about liberty being a "guiding ideal." This is more evidence that he has backtracked big time from the Burning Bush doctrine in the Inaugural Address (you can also see some relevant excerpts in America's new calling). That speech did not speak of a guiding principle. It expressly said that America would stand with stand with all who are living in tyranny, that America proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and that from now on "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." That's a lot more than a "guiding principle."

Bush did not return to foreign policy and the Burning Bush doctrine until the latter half of the speech.

In the long-term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

I agree with much of what Bush said in this excerpt, but he failed to address the short-term realities that could drastically impair the long-term goal. See, some of the conditions that are feeding radicalism in the Middle East are the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some of the conditions that are feeding radicalism is the arrogance with which the Bush administration has conducted foreign policy. Also, Iraq has become the recruiting and training ground for terrorists, and that happened because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And while human freedom might very well be the only force to stop tyranny, the use of military force tends to grow hatred. As Wes Clark said, "[D]emocracy in the Middle East is unlikely to come at the point of our gun."

Look at this excerpt one more time. Do you see anything different from what Bush said in the Inaugural Address? Do you see any details as to how the Burning Bush doctrine is to be implemented? I do not. Let's move on to the next excerpt.

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.

Once again, this is largely a repeat from the Inaugural Address, and thus I will repeat a criticism I made in America's new calling, but before that, I will talk about George's description of the "empire of oppression" (which is my pick to replace "axis of evil"). While it is true that some countries are ruled by brutal rulers, those rulers generally do not have an empire. They control one country. They have to spend all their time and resources ruling their own countries. Quick--name one dictator that rules more than one country. Furthermore, if these brutal leaders are indeed a "tiny group," why are we worried? Now let's get to the criticism. I termed it the "be careful what you ask for" problem. One of the quotes I used to describe this problem came from the Washington Post: "Autocratic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, moreover, would be likely to be replaced by opponents of U.S. policy if free and fair elections were held there today." See, if democracy truly takes hold in some of these countries, chances are good that they will elect governments that are anti-American because that would reflect their cultures and values. I have since found some more evidence of this from another Washington Post article:

But the pace of (democratic) change has been glacial, and many frustrated reformers say the apparent disarray of the U.S. project in Iraq has given autocratic governments an excuse to forgo even the most modest political reforms. Offering a clean-government alternative to administrations rife with corruption, Islamic parties are surging in popularity, a trend that deeply frightens many secular Arabs and dampens their enthusiasm for free elections.

(emphasis added). Does anyone really think that the Bush administration is going to simply allow an Islamic party to rise to power? We're talking about the possibility of another Taliban or theocratic regime like in Iran. Bush is not going to allow that. Rumskull said as much in an interview with the AP in April 2003:

"If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."

I got the Rumskull quote from the Fox News web site, and the headline read "Rumsfeld: Iraqis Can Form Own Gov't, Just Not a Religious One."

Next excerpt:

That advance (of freedom) has great momentum in our time -- shown by women voting in Afghanistan, and Palestinians choosing a new direction, and the people of Ukraine asserting their democratic rights and electing a president. We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story.

(emphasis added). Yes, George, but HOW? Where are those details? Perhaps they are in the next excerpt:

The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure. Tomorrow morning, Secretary of State Rice departs on a trip that will take her to Israel and the West Bank for meetings with Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas. She will discuss with them how we and our friends can help the Palestinian people end terror and build the institutions of a peaceful, independent, democratic state. To promote this democracy, I will ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, is within reach -- and America will help them achieve that goal.

(emphasis added). Well say, there are some details there. Condi Rice is going to discuss matters with Sharon and Abbas. This is in line with the "discuss and remind" method described by Bush in his press conference (and discussed in Political buffoonery). I guess that's not much detail after all. But wait--we are going to give $350 million for Palestinian reforms. Seems kind of small compared to the hundreds of billions we have spent on Iraq. Still, that is at least one detail provided by Bush.

Could there be more in the next excerpt?

To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom.

This provides no details whatsoever. Moreover, it fails to address the "What do we do about current relationships?" problem (discussed in America's new calling), which I summarized as follows:

The war on terror does present major problems for Bush's "calling." He said in the Inaugural Address that "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. " So if that is his greatest duty, and if that duty is being fulfilled in part because of help from countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan, is Bush going to risk losing that help by trying to establish "democratic movements and institutions" in those countries? If so, is he not meeting his greatest duty?

Ah, but Bush did then address two of those countries:

Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain. The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.

This is nothing more than "discussing and reminding" and provides no details about how Bush will help achieve democracy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Bush continued to discuss the Middle East:

To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder.

Confront them how? Through "discussion and reminding"? Military force does not seem to be an option in the near future because our military is already stretched thin in Iraq, and, as noted above, military force tends to grow the hatred that Bush said must be overcome in order for freedom to rule. Bush did then mention some specifics:

Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. (Applause.) Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.

So Bush apparently is going to use the Syrian Accountability Act to get Syria to embrace democracy. I need to devote an entire post to this legislation, but for now I will state four points and ask two questions. The first point is that the Act calls for various economic and political sanctions to be imposed on Syria until it basically 1) ceases all terrorist activities, 2) gets completely out of Lebanon, and 3) does nothing to develop WMD. The second point is that the President (Bush) has complete discretion in deciding what, if any, sanctions will be enforced. The third point is that Talon News (a major right-wing "news organization") reported that

President Bush issued a statement that indicated he construed the law's requirements as tools, not directives limiting the White House's historical prerogatives in shaping foreign policy.

"My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the various statements of policy in the Act as U.S. foreign policy," Bush added.

See, it turns out (as reported in the Washington Post) that Bush was not in favor of the Act. The fourth point is that although Bush declared sanctions against Syria on May 11, 2004, they were not that harsh. From the same Washington Post article:

The practical effect of the new sanctions is mostly symbolic. Diplomatic relations will not be cut, no Syrian flights fly to the United States, and Bush said in his message to Congress that he will waive the sanctions for products such as telecommunications equipment and aircraft parts, in addition to the exemptions for food and medicine.

Thomas Crocker, a partner at Alston & Bird and a sanctions specialist, said the permitted products constitute a large portion of the $200 million in exports from the United States to Syria. Bush justified the continued sale of telecommunications equipment -- such as cellular phones -- as an effort "to promote the free flow of information."

Way to enforce democracy in Syria, George! And here is the question: Didn't the Republicans argue that sanctions against Iraq were ineffective and that was a major reason why we needed to invade? Just curious...

As for Iran, the European Union--especially Britain, France, and Germany--is doing the work right now. Indeed, the BBC reported today that "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she sees no need to get involved in European efforts to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear programme," even though "European officials have repeatedly asked Washington for closer cooperation in dealing with the programme." Way to make sure we are "working with" our European allies, George!

The last excerpt from the State of the Union Address I will discuss here is as follows:

And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.

It seems that George is saying that spreading democracy and freedom in the Middle East will be done largely through success in Iraq. Arguably, that would be a detail as to how the Burning Bush doctrine will be carried out. Now if he could only give us some details as to how success in Iraq will achieved...