A, or even the, critical issue as far as American watchers abroad are concerned is whether the second administration of George W. Bush will move to the center and prove less bold and ideological in its aims than his first term or if the next four years will be Bush I on “steroids,” meaning a very aggressive and activist America bent on bringing democracy and transformation to parts of the world still afflicted with despots and evil regimes.
The president’s inaugural and State of the Union addresses provided ambiguous and even ambivalent grounds for answering this question. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s maiden trip to Europe and the Middle East, regarded as a tour de force by the press in terms of mending broken relations in Europe, would suggest the former. Still, many remain unconvinced that the president’s views have tempered that much.
From the White House: President George W. Bush is widely regarded by supporters as some one who says what he means and means what he says. Thus, has his stirring inaugural address in January signaled a bold, ambitious and activist second term both abroad and at home ---- the first salvo in a permanent barrage against tyranny and excessive government intrusion into American society? Or will his words about the “force and fire of freedom” and his emphasis on “character” and “determination of self” be tempered by reality and pragmatism, serving as distant yet noteworthy goals for America?
His State of the Union address delivered two weeks later was more subdued and understated focusing on domestic matters such as social security and tax reform. From an Asian perspective, outside his promise to cut the U.S. deficit in half by 2008 or 2009 and those international economic implications, there was little said. However, the stunning scene in the president’s box of a former Iraqi dissident hugging the mother of an American Marine sergeant killed in Iraq was quite an image and one conveying the impression that Mr. Bush is determined to bring democracy and stability to that trouble state almost regardless of cost. The additional $80 billion in requested defense spending beyond the new budget request of $419 billion for the Pentagon supports this determination.
Current betting on answers to these questions about a more or a less aggressive Bush second term is divided. George H. W. Bush, the nation’s forty-first president, is the gold standard in taking the first bet. Those who believe pragmatism will limit dramatic action, argue this way. Guided by his father’s example, Bush 43 has recognized the mistakes and ideological biases of his first term. Unlikely to make public admission of error, nonetheless, policy will reflect that conclusion.
This bet is supported by appointment of what appears a less ideological and cabinet reminiscent of his father’s. The State Department with Condoleezza Rice, Robert Zoellick and Nicholas Burns in the top slots is illustrative. In last week’s press conference, the president ratcheted back on the lofty aims of his inaugural address noting that they did not imply major policy shifts. The additional $80 billion request to cover operations in Iraq underscores the common sense view that the nation can ill afford to engage in new ventures in Iran, Syria, North Korea or elsewhere especially with so many American forces deployed to Iraq.
Domestic policy would follow a similar course. Ambitious plans for privatizing a portion of social security would be constrained by the economic realities of rapidly escalating budget and trade deficits that will swell the national debt. Thus, whether or not the president has the “vision thing” his father purposely avoided, this case bets that Bush’s second term will be more cautious and expectations modest. His budget for 2006 that was just submitted to Congress tries to trim the deficit and, aside from omitting about a trillion or so dollars in further red ink due to “off-budget” items, the costs of privatizing social security and greater defense spending, is more “centrist” than revolutionary. But those who claim to know the president well bet otherwise.
Bush on Steroids: The other view argues that peace and stability can only come through muscular efforts to advance democracy. The larger than expected turnout in the January 30th elections in Iraq, in addition to votes in Afghanistan and Palestine, is seen as persuasive proof that the administration is on the right track. While there are limits to American power and influence, there are also opportunities for bold foreign policy initiatives aimed at spreading liberty and freedom across parts of the globe.
Domestically, social security reform through private savings accounts would become the engine for transforming American society by reducing citizen’s dependence on government. Here, character and “determination of self” are the descriptors for changes potentially as dramatic as FDR’s “New Deal.” Religion is an important component. A more religious America injects values into society the president believes that will make the nation stronger and more self-reliant.
Bush, of course, is likely to prove selective in determining which areas he is bold and which is not. For example, there is speculation inside the administration that Syria, not Iran or North Korea, will be next on the hit list because it serves as the base for the Iraqi insurgency. Eliminating that role not only aids Iraq---Syria too might have a regime change for the better. At home, Social Security reform takes on a similarly pivotal role.
A second possibility is Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Secretary Rice was explicit in noting in her last trip that Iran was not on the agenda for the time being—a less than veiled warning possibly designed to give teeth to the European diplomatic initiative trying to strike a deal to assure Iran does not field nuclear weapons. But there are people in Washington who are more belligerently minded seeing Iran and its sponsorship of Hezbollah a greater threat to Israel and are proposing stronger action including military strikes if needed to destroy any Iranian nuclear weapons facilities.
What About Asia?: Asia and, by extension, India are the missing giants. The China-Russia-Japan-Korean interactions will have significant impact across economic, political and strategic matters. These were not raised in any significant way, as the focus remains the Middle East and the Global War on Terror. Before the end of the decade, China and India will account for nearly three billion people. Their combined economies will be prodigious. Still, American policy and expectations including those towards Japan are unclear.
The best that can be said is that while the Bush administration still is unprepared for bilateral talks with North Korea, there is little to suggest that it will adopt a harder line towards Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Most likely, Asian policy will be status quo unless of course events unfold otherwise and a political or economic “tsunami” hits the region. As Taiwan and the Mainland seem interested in “jawing” not “warring,” Asia probably will be of secondary interest to the United States for some time to come and at least until Iraq and the Middle East clarify as to how events may turn out there.
The Real Bet: But there is a better bet. Iraq is not only the opportunity; this is the last chance for the administration to make good its aim of bringing peace and pluralism there. However, the White House must learn from past misjudgments. If it continues on its current course and ignores the errors and wrong policies, civil war in Iraq is a distinct possibility. If it has the capacity to admit error, then constructive change is possible.
The short war to depose Saddam Hussein was a brilliant victory. The peace that followed was not. That the elections went far better than most expected was a bonus now being spun into a nearly euphoric view that the insurgency is winding down. Be careful! The real test will be the transition to a permanent Iraqi government that is representative, stable and based on the rule of law. This will not happen on its own or by accident.
It is here that the administration must be bold, aggressive and ambitious in three areas. Training of Iraqi security, police and military forces must be accelerated many times over. The primary role of coalition force must shift to training and not operations.
Second, international partners must be engaged. Many states have volunteered to assist in training. The Bush administration should actively solicit and welcome that assistance. Rather like donors’ conferences to raise money for reconstruction, there should be an international training purpose for the same reason.
Finally, to prevail in Iraq, the battle of ideas must be won. Unfortunately, this campaign has not been well fought. If the rhetoric of the inaugural is to be matched by deed, these are the area where the administration would be well advised to spend its precious capital and place its bet.
JIME center.All rights reserved.