The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor.
George Orwell
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

January 21, 2005

Bush: The Crusade Must Go On

by Jim Lobe

Kicking off his second four-year term, President George W. Bush Thursday delivered an inaugural address filled with the righteous resolve and soaring rhetoric that are music to his core constituency but will almost certainly grate on the nerves of almost everybody else, both here and abroad.

The speech, which was studded with religious references, was dominated by a sense of certainty and even triumphalism about Washington's special mission to spread "freedom" and "liberty" – words he used more than 40 times in an 1,800-word address – throughout the world.

He even argued the country's very survival depended on exporting freedom abroad.

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion," he declared, evoking the "mortal threat" posed by violence arising from "resentment and tyranny." "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

"So 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," he said, adding, "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

While insisting that Washington's goal is "to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way" – rather than to impose "its own style of government" – Bush warned that his administration will not be shy about pushing its agenda.

"America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause," he said, adding that "we will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right."

Traditionally, the inaugural speech, which takes place outside the Capitol, is used by presidents to set out their grand visions rather than their concrete plans, which are normally the subject of State of the Union address that takes place inside the Congress several days later.

Nonetheless, some analysts expressed surprise at the foreign-policy sweep of Bush's vision, the almost total lack of specificity that it contained, and the almost total certainty with which it was expressed.

"It very much reminds one of John Kennedy's inaugural address [in 1961] about Americans being willing to 'bear any burden [in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty]' – and that's what got us into Vietnam," said Jonathan Clarke, an expert at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Particularly notable, several analysts noted, was Bush's failure to explicitly cite the situation in Iraq, except when he noted that "our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon."

"While there were indirect references to sacrifice," noted Lee Feinstein, who heads foreign policy studies in the Washington office of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), "his failure to mention Iraq explicitly speaks to the administration's vulnerabilities."

Iraq represents a serious credibility problem for Bush's insistence that Washington does not wish to impose democracy on other countries, according to Ivan Eland of the California-based Independent Institute (II) and author of The Emperor Has No Clothes, a realist critique of Bush's foreign policy.

"When he says freedom must be chosen," said Eland, "that's not what happened in Iraq. The Iraqis had no choice, because it was the U.S. government that decided to 'liberate' it. Now, they're faced with what could be a full-blown civil war. Bush thinks it's going to work out, but most experts don't agree."

Indeed, according to recent polls, a growing majority of the public also lacks confidence in Washington's mission in Iraq, and Bush offered nothing to reassure them Thursday other than to remind them that, "Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals."

"This really falls on a very divided nation," said Marina Ottaway, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), an influential think tank here.

"The speech was really tailored for hardcore Bush supporters, but for those who have become very skeptical, including many people who voted for Bush, the speech will be very difficult to follow. It declares the success of our policies at a time when there are an increasingly large number of people who see Iraq as a mistake."

Ottaway, who co-edited a new book on U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East, Uncharted Journey, also predicted that the speech is likely to be poorly received abroad, particularly in the Arab world, for what will be seen as its hypocrisy and double standards – a point much echoed by other commentators.

"The rhetoric about the United States serving as a beacon for democracy and human freedom doesn't jibe well with the resentment toward the U.S. that is building around the globe and with the chaos that has ensued in Iraq following the American invasion," agreed Charles Kupchan, a foreign-policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"If someone were watching this on al-Jazeera or al-Arabiya [television stations]," he added, "this speech would do more to incite cynicism about U.S. motives than alleviate it."

Kupchan and Clarke stressed that the absence of details as to how his administration intended to achieve its goal of eradicating tyranny and promoting freedom – and particularly when to use military force – made the speech an unreliable predictor of what Bush will do in his second term.

"If the United States opposes tyranny and supports freedom, who wouldn't support that?" said Kupchan. "If, on the other hand, that agenda is carried out through a series of military invasions, then Americans and everyone else has reason to be quite worried about the second term."

John Gershman, director of Foreign Policy in Focus, a liberal-left think tank, had an even more pessimistic take. He noted the contrast between Bush's speech and that of former President Woodrow Wilson's second inaugural address, which also extolled democratic government as a top U.S. foreign policy goal.

"But Wilson framed that mission in terms of a concern of the 'family of nations,' decidedly not as a nationalist, unilateralist crusade of the kind that Bush is putting forward," Gershman said, adding, "(a)ny doubts that this second term will be marked by less Manichean, more nuanced approaches to foreign policy should be dismissed by this address."

"Bush's agenda is even more ambitious than Wilson's," noted Eland. "Wilson only wanted to make the world safe for democracy, but Bush wants to make the world democratic – and to do so at the point of a gun, if necessary."

(Inter Press Service)

comments on this article?

  • US Jews Open to Palestinian Unity Govt

  • Bipartisan Experts Urge 'Partnership' With Russia

  • Obama Administration Insists It's Neutral in Salvador Poll

  • NGOs Hail Congressional Moves to Ease Embargo

  • Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support

  • Washington Ends Diplomatic Embargo of Syria

  • Diplomatic, Aid Spending Set to Rise Under Obama Budget

  • Many Muslims Reject Terror Tactics, Back Some Goals

  • Lugar Report Calls for New Cuba Policy

  • U.S.-Israel Storm Clouds Ahead?

  • Calls Mount for Obama to Appoint 'Truth Commission'

  • Washington's Praise of Venezuelan Vote Suggests Détente

  • Rightward Shift in Israeli Polls Creates New Headaches

  • US Advised to Back Somalia Reconciliation Efforts

  • Hawks Urge Boosting Military Spending

  • More Troops, More Worries,
    Less Consensus on Afghanistan

  • Report: Most Citizens Kept in Dark on Govt Spending

  • Obama Raises Hopes of
    Mideast Experts

  • Obama Picks Israel-Arab, Afghanistan-Pakistan Negotiators

  • Rights Groups Applaud Move to Halt Gitmo Trials

  • Obama Offers Internationalist Vision

  • Around the World, High Hopes for Obama

  • Liberals, Realists Set to Clash in Obama Administration

  • Obama Urged to Take Bold Steps Toward Cuba Normalization

  • Clinton Stresses 'Cooperative Engagement,' 'Smart Power'

  • Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous

  • Networks' Int'l News Coverage at Record Low in 2008

  • Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance

  • Israeli Attack May Complicate Obama's Plans

  • Report: Recognizing Hamas Could Help Peace

  • Business Groups Support Dismantling Cuba Embargo

  • Mumbai Massacre Seen as Major Blow to Regional Strategy

  • Obama Urged to Quickly Engage Iran, Syria

  • Diplomacy, Multilateralism Stressed by Obama Team

  • Obama Foreign Policy: Realists to Reign?

  • Hemispheric Group Calls for Major Changes in Americas Policy

  • Greybeards Urge Overhaul of Global Governance

  • Intelligence Analysts See Multi-Polar, Risky World By 2025

  • Obama Urged to Strengthen Ties with UN

  • Obama-Tied Think-Tank Calls for Pakistan Shift

  • Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran

  • First, Close Gitmo,
    Say Rights Groups

  • Obama's Foreign Policy:
    No Sharp Break From Bush

  • Coca Cultivation Up Despite Six Years of Plan Colombia

  • Obama to Seek Global Re-engagement, But How Much?

  • Two, Three, Many Grand Bargains?

  • Moving Towards a 'Grand Bargain' in Afghanistan

  • Top Ex-Diplomats Slam 'Militarization' of Foreign Policy

  • Bush Set to Go With a Whimper, Not a Bang

  • Pakistan 'Greatest Single Challenge' to Next President

  • Senate Passes Nuke Deal Over Escalation Fears

  • Brief Talks With Syria Spur Speculation

  • Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for AIPAC

  • Bipartisan Group Urges Deeper Diplomacy with Muslim World

  • White House Still Cautious on Georgia
  • More Archives

    Jim Lobe, works as Inter Press Service's correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2017 Antiwar.com