Bush Promises a ‘Strong and Resolute’ Second Term
Can His Tough Talk Help Him Win Friends and Spread Freedom?
By Patti Mohr (written on November 5, 2004)
President George W. Bush is widely criticized for alienating many of America’s allies during his first term. His push to move forward in Iraq with or without approval by the United Nations Security Council, his administration’s brazen attitude toward “Old Europe,” and U.S. disengagement on the Arab-Israeli conflict are a few of the reasons why. Some of the diplomatic disagreements were inevitable. Others, arguably, could have been avoided.
Many political analysts say they hope Bush will use his second term to forge better diplomatic relations with its U.S. allies.
“American leadership is not at a high point. We all know that,” said Patrick Cronin, a former senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development during Bush’s first term. “And there’s a huge opportunity and challenge facing President Bush now that he’s been reelected. Whereas [Senator John F.] Kerry would have had a global honeymoon, Bush starts from essentially a hole internationally in terms of American prestige and influence.”
All things are possible in a second term. Having put political constraints behind them, second-term presidents can clean house, adopt new policies, and begin again with a fresh slate. Former President Richard Nixon wasted no time changing his Cabinet. He fired most of his staff within weeks of his reelection. President Clinton also reshuffled his Cabinet, when many of his top officials left for the private sector.
Bush isn’t likely to make any drastic changes in his Cabinet or in his policies. Although a few top officials – including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Bush’s top adviser on Iraq – stepped down days after the election, White House officials said Bush asked his advisers to continue working for him. Some are still expected to resign, but not immediately. Most observers suggest Secretary of State Colin Powell is just waiting for the right time to step down. Meanwhile, his competitor in shaping policy, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said he plans to stick around. And Vice President Dick Cheney – a central figure in the administration’s foreign policies – isn’t retiring anytime soon.
One thing became clear very quickly. Bush is determined to maintain consistency in his policies and his worldview.
“I personally believe that the character of this administration has been set, and by and large, we are going to see more of the same,” said Kurt Campbell, CSIS vice president and director of the International Security Program. He suggested the November 2 election reinforced in the administration a “very deep psychological belief that we are right and we are on the right track.”
A Democratic Peace in the Middle East?
Bush talks a lot about promoting freedom and democracy as an alternative to terror. It’s more than nice-sounding rhetoric. It’s his mission, his mantra. He means what he says and doesn’t mind when others disagree. The goal guides his policies in Iraq and drives his agenda in the Middle East.
Bush says he knows there are naysayers who have doubts about the strategy, and he disagrees with them:
“There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism,” Bush said shortly after the election. “And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.”
Bush adopted the strategy after the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States showed him that oppressive regimes can be breeding grounds for terrorism. It’s a major shift from the policy of strategic alliances that his father once embraced. And it’s basis is one in which Bush has faith. More than being a formula for security, Bush sees the approach as spreading freedom, which he says is a universal right given by God, throughout the world. Bush’s is likely to strengthen his commitment to promoting freedom in his second term.
“The desire to promote political reform in the Middle East is going to remain a key central objective of U.S. policy,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The concept has its intellectual basis in Democratic Peace theory, which says democracies will promote peaceful ties with one another. It explains U.S. policy in Iraq, which Bush sees as being a model that will spread democratic reforms throughout the Middle East. Iraq hasn’t worked out the way the administration architects imagined, but they are not about to turn their backs on the plan now. Bush made clear that he is sticking to his objectives of training Iraqi troops and preparing the country for elections.
Policy objectives could be constrained by U.S. budget deficits and an overextension of U.S. Reserve forces. However, the Bush administration’s goals for broader Middle East could evolve more toward pushing economic reforms rather than forcing political changes. Gulf countries like Morocco and Jordan that have undertaken economic reforms might prove to be the examples the administration hopes Middle Eastern countries will replicate. “There is going to be a search for success stories,” Alterman said.
Alterman suggests U.S. diplomats will face a sort of dichotomy in the Middle East due to a coziness with leaders that publics will resent. “It’s my judgment that governments are going to accommodate themselves increasingly now that the Bush administration is in for another four years. But on the public level people are going to be less willing to work with the administration,” he said.
Challenges Ahead
Bush faces more immediate challenges. He will have to find ways to sustain U.S. military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan while also confronting Iran and North Korean about their nuclear programs.
“The one problem that is unavoidable is what to do with Iran,” Alterman said. Divisions within the first-term Bush administration thwarted the United States from forming a policy to confront Iran about its developing nuclear program. In the absence a U.S. policy, the European Union took the lead in negotiating with Iran.
Many leaders say Bush’s greatest use of U.S. leadership would be in bringing leaders together to on a plan to get the Middle East peace negotiations back on track. Bush’s closest wartime ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, names it as his highest priority. Visiting Bush at the White House just over a week after the election, Blair urged Bush to help move the process forward.
Richard Hass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he thinks the trick will be in making sure Israeli goes beyond its disengagement from Gaza, and ensuring that Gaza does not become a lawless failed state. “Failure here would not only make it much more difficult for the United States to promote democratic reform in the Arab world or slow terrorist recruitment, but would damage its reputation everywhere,” Hass wrote recently in the Economist.
By Patti Mohr (written on November 5, 2004)
President George W. Bush is widely criticized for alienating many of America’s allies during his first term. His push to move forward in Iraq with or without approval by the United Nations Security Council, his administration’s brazen attitude toward “Old Europe,” and U.S. disengagement on the Arab-Israeli conflict are a few of the reasons why. Some of the diplomatic disagreements were inevitable. Others, arguably, could have been avoided.
Many political analysts say they hope Bush will use his second term to forge better diplomatic relations with its U.S. allies.
“American leadership is not at a high point. We all know that,” said Patrick Cronin, a former senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development during Bush’s first term. “And there’s a huge opportunity and challenge facing President Bush now that he’s been reelected. Whereas [Senator John F.] Kerry would have had a global honeymoon, Bush starts from essentially a hole internationally in terms of American prestige and influence.”
All things are possible in a second term. Having put political constraints behind them, second-term presidents can clean house, adopt new policies, and begin again with a fresh slate. Former President Richard Nixon wasted no time changing his Cabinet. He fired most of his staff within weeks of his reelection. President Clinton also reshuffled his Cabinet, when many of his top officials left for the private sector.
Bush isn’t likely to make any drastic changes in his Cabinet or in his policies. Although a few top officials – including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Bush’s top adviser on Iraq – stepped down days after the election, White House officials said Bush asked his advisers to continue working for him. Some are still expected to resign, but not immediately. Most observers suggest Secretary of State Colin Powell is just waiting for the right time to step down. Meanwhile, his competitor in shaping policy, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said he plans to stick around. And Vice President Dick Cheney – a central figure in the administration’s foreign policies – isn’t retiring anytime soon.
One thing became clear very quickly. Bush is determined to maintain consistency in his policies and his worldview.
“I personally believe that the character of this administration has been set, and by and large, we are going to see more of the same,” said Kurt Campbell, CSIS vice president and director of the International Security Program. He suggested the November 2 election reinforced in the administration a “very deep psychological belief that we are right and we are on the right track.”
A Democratic Peace in the Middle East?
Bush talks a lot about promoting freedom and democracy as an alternative to terror. It’s more than nice-sounding rhetoric. It’s his mission, his mantra. He means what he says and doesn’t mind when others disagree. The goal guides his policies in Iraq and drives his agenda in the Middle East.
Bush says he knows there are naysayers who have doubts about the strategy, and he disagrees with them:
“There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism,” Bush said shortly after the election. “And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.”
Bush adopted the strategy after the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States showed him that oppressive regimes can be breeding grounds for terrorism. It’s a major shift from the policy of strategic alliances that his father once embraced. And it’s basis is one in which Bush has faith. More than being a formula for security, Bush sees the approach as spreading freedom, which he says is a universal right given by God, throughout the world. Bush’s is likely to strengthen his commitment to promoting freedom in his second term.
“The desire to promote political reform in the Middle East is going to remain a key central objective of U.S. policy,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The concept has its intellectual basis in Democratic Peace theory, which says democracies will promote peaceful ties with one another. It explains U.S. policy in Iraq, which Bush sees as being a model that will spread democratic reforms throughout the Middle East. Iraq hasn’t worked out the way the administration architects imagined, but they are not about to turn their backs on the plan now. Bush made clear that he is sticking to his objectives of training Iraqi troops and preparing the country for elections.
Policy objectives could be constrained by U.S. budget deficits and an overextension of U.S. Reserve forces. However, the Bush administration’s goals for broader Middle East could evolve more toward pushing economic reforms rather than forcing political changes. Gulf countries like Morocco and Jordan that have undertaken economic reforms might prove to be the examples the administration hopes Middle Eastern countries will replicate. “There is going to be a search for success stories,” Alterman said.
Alterman suggests U.S. diplomats will face a sort of dichotomy in the Middle East due to a coziness with leaders that publics will resent. “It’s my judgment that governments are going to accommodate themselves increasingly now that the Bush administration is in for another four years. But on the public level people are going to be less willing to work with the administration,” he said.
Challenges Ahead
Bush faces more immediate challenges. He will have to find ways to sustain U.S. military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan while also confronting Iran and North Korean about their nuclear programs.
“The one problem that is unavoidable is what to do with Iran,” Alterman said. Divisions within the first-term Bush administration thwarted the United States from forming a policy to confront Iran about its developing nuclear program. In the absence a U.S. policy, the European Union took the lead in negotiating with Iran.
Many leaders say Bush’s greatest use of U.S. leadership would be in bringing leaders together to on a plan to get the Middle East peace negotiations back on track. Bush’s closest wartime ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, names it as his highest priority. Visiting Bush at the White House just over a week after the election, Blair urged Bush to help move the process forward.
Richard Hass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he thinks the trick will be in making sure Israeli goes beyond its disengagement from Gaza, and ensuring that Gaza does not become a lawless failed state. “Failure here would not only make it much more difficult for the United States to promote democratic reform in the Arab world or slow terrorist recruitment, but would damage its reputation everywhere,” Hass wrote recently in the Economist.