A Change In Policy?

By

George Hickerson

During the Presidential debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore, I found myself very puzzled. On the one hand, I believed I heard Mr. Bush condemning the international polices of the Clinton era for being "nation-building" and interventionist in situations in which the United States should not be involved.

According to many pundits, Mr. Bush "won" the Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University on Oct 11, 2000 debate. In my mind, it was not entirely clear what the differences were between the two candidates. Gore would not have gone into Lebanon, while Bush would have; Bush would not have gone into Haiti while Gore would have. Gore did admit to supporting the intervention in Somalia, but suggested that the initiative was "ill-considered." The main differences that came out in the debate were that Gore would try to help the countries rebuild their social structure (the dreaded concept of "nation-building"), while Bush would have us only there to do the fighting. Mr. Bush would let our allies do the peacekeeping.

Those of us who wanted to see if there really were significant differences between the Gore and Bush foreign policy had to wait until after Mr. Bush was elected President. Then, early in his administration, President Bush did reveal what his foreign policy was. In a break with his predecessor, who had worked very hard to bring about peace in the Middle East, President Bush declared that his administration would adopt a hands-off approach. The almost immediate result of this policy was an increase in the level of violence in that area.

The "do-nothing" foreign policy of President Bush changed, of course, after September 11th. In response to this tragedy, President Bush found his mission in the international arena. It was now abundantly clear that the United States could not ignore the problems of the world. Terrorists had brought the world's problems to our door. About a month after the

The fact that the Taliban had been a brutal regime for years, and largely ignored by the United States, was suddenly the scourge of the earth. The United States discovered that women were terribly abused in this most intolerant of countries. And, of course, the Taliban harbored terrorists.

It is false to say that the US government learned the true nature of the Taliban government only after September 11. Even during the Clinton administration, the CIA had operatives working in Afghanistan to undermine the Taliban government and counter the al-Queda terrorist organization. The Bush administration obviously didn't pull the CIA out of Afghanistan after the President took office.

But the debates are past us, and we are in a "new era." Terrorism is now a fact of life. But is this really a new era? Or is it? Hasn't terror been a fact of life for much of the world? Hasn't England lived with Irish terrorists for many years? Hasn't Spain lived with Basque terrorists for many years? In fact, most of the world has lived with terrorism for a long time.

What makes the US response to terrorism significant is that it is typically "American." It is an over-reaction to a problem that has been around for a long time. It is a blatant disregard of the existence of a problem that existed long before September 11. What makes September 11 a dividing point is that finally the United States had to live with what most of the world lives with.

What should be our response to this watershed event? Should it be a complete reversal of Bush's foreign policy platform of 2000?

No, it shouldn't. While I don't believe in Bush's pre-September 11 foreign policy, I don't believe in his post-September 11 policy either. Here are the two elements of the current foreign policy that bother me.

First, I have concerns over the use of force to solve problems. I am not sure that the militaristic intervention model did much for us in the past. I don't believe it will do much for us in the future. The use of force to ferret out terrorists is a no-win scenario, since we only accomplish two things. The first thing we accomplish is to make the terrorists "smarter." Every step we take to "defend" ourselves, the terrorists will counter with a novel approach to attack us. The second thing that the use of force accomplishes is to make us into our enemies. At some point, the defense of "collateral damage" that we are pursuing justice just begins to ring shallow.

We have seen an example of what can be done to counter terrorism. In one of the airplanes hijacked by the September 11 terrorists, the crew and passengers of the plane fought the terrorists. While it is tragic that they died, they died as true heroes, people who sacrificed their life to prevent a greater tragedy.

What kind of people makes that sacrifice? Brave people, a people who know that the price of freedom is your own life. I am proud that America nurtures such people, because as long as such people exist, terrorism will never defeat us.

The second element of President Bush's foreign policy that distresses me is its over-emphasis on "the big stick." One thing that has remained consistent in George W. Bush's philosophy is that he prefers to use America's power to fight wars instead of protecting nations. Prior to the election, he preferred to let the Europeans protect the peace in Kosovo and Bosnia; he prefers to let the European and Muslim nations protect the peace in Afghanistan. And if the United States invades Iraq, will President Bush leave it to the Europeans to rebuild the country?

I recognize that the War on Terrorism has many weapons in its arsenal besides the use of military power. Some of these are initiatives that we should have been doing all along, and I applaud the President's boldness in attacking the infrastructure that supports terrorism. Some of these initiatives, however, I question. The times have changed, indeed, but the times haven't changed enough to justify secrecy, espionage, toppling governments, and creating the kind of world that the terrorists want.

Because going down that path creates a policy that encourages terrorism.