Bush's China/Iraq framework, according to the AP

In what one can only hope was a rather hastily assembled (18 minutes ago!) AP headline story on Yahoo! yesterday, there was a discussion of the Bush administration’s current position on China and Iraq. It seems Bush would be concerned about the Chinese military, if China ever “turned hostile”, as he was explaining to the Australian Government. Bush said that his administration spends “a lot of time on China”. Would it be fair to wonder what the Bush administration is actually considering doing about China? What specific actions do you think the folks in the White House have in mind?

Remaining in a hopeful mood, one hopes that we glean nothing on this question from the AP reporter who did the story. Without transition, Bush is stated to have urged all countries considering pulling out their troops “to base their decision on restoring the country’s security”. Oh, that is a reference to Iraq. No need to worry that the Bush administration is promoting military options to address his concern about China turning hostile. Whew.

I imagine President Bush actually addressed China and Iraq in close succession at his press conference in Sydney. And perhaps Bush did so in a way that was somewhat confusing. But come on, the Associated Press ought to be able to find reporters and editors who can sift through the word salad and report something lucid about what the United States President has had to say at a meeting with another head of state. Right? The fact that this AP story is still on the web, largely uncorrected, is bad news indeed for the US media consumer. But do you think anybody cares, or will even notice?

Bush's accelerated Iraq pullout

Don't believe what the White House says. Not only is the White House unopposed to a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, the US has effectively already withdrawn. As it stands today, a major Baghdad bridge over the Tigris can be brought down and a suicide bomb set off in the heavily-protected Parliament building (killing legislators) within hours of each other. And these things can be done with all the force and surge of the US military seeking to prevent them from happening.

In what sense, then, is the US "there"? To the distant observer, only two sad answers appear. First and foremost, US children are putting their lives at risk, and they are dying "there". Second, the US is seen throughout the world as the military force that is unable to control security "there" in any real way.

Acknowledging that these are HUGE ways to be "there", I am unwilling to consider that these are the goals of the Bushies in their stated opposition to scheduled withdrawal. So perhaps the latest events will persuade the Bushies that we have already withdrawn under the current strategy. If not, the world should give up any remaining hope that the reality of the at-risk kids (US and Iraqi) can ever match the Bushies' reckless and inexplicable fantasies.

Let the People Divide Themselves

Everybody except maybe the Bush administration is drowning in the seemingly endless deluge of stories about death and destruction in Iraq. (Fortunately for Bush, there is Justice to worry about.) But when does it become acceptable for those in power to ask if we have been looking at the problem the wrong way? The US Government and the US media clearly define success by whether there is peace within the post-colonial borders. "Can we avoid all-out civil war?"

When do we consider, however, that the West's historical division of the region by borders drawn on a map may have been at the root of the current issues? The West wants folks the world over to be excited by, and loyal to, a map and a flag (and a finance ministry and a UN seat), just the way the West has been since Westphalia. Is it possible, however, that other regions of the world may naturally prefer to divide themselves differently? That there may be other measures - say religious, business, or familial - that other people prefer to consider in determining who is "one of us"?

By introducing wealth along with its means for dividing, the West has enticed people everywhere to adopt, or at least to appear to adopt, the legitimacy of the Western style of division. But how many deaths will it take before we consider that the world may not yet have truly bought the West's global map? That systems empowered by Western wealth will break down, and when that happens, people's innate means for division will re-awaken, often wreaking havoc after having been suppressed and supplanted? I say until we wrestle thoroughly with this possibility, we will never even understand the problems, much less commence a successful solution in Iraq.

John John

Stewart had Bolton on the Daily Show last night, and wow. That was nine minutes of worthwhile television. The two appeared diametrically opposed on the subjects they hit, and their repartee was informative and entertaining. Stewart jabbed with whether Bolton's "fox in the hen house" appointment as UN ambassador was emblematic of Bush hubris and failure to understand and utilize compromise as a resource with Congress and other countries. Bolton countered with the need for an elected administration to remain true to its stated policies, even if that means putting people in places where they will seek to effect fundamental change, even creative destruction (OK, I am tossing that last part to Bolton).

Though he didn't say all that much, Bolton had the most interesting lines. Following up on the "true to stated policies" point, he asked, if administrations have to compromise as Stewart suggested, what is the point of having elections? And was Stewart challenging what Bolton called "democratic theory"? I will sound off on elections in another post, but for now, let's just remind Bolton that the President is not the only elected official in the US Federal Government. And Congress was designed to be a check and balance on the executive branch, if I remember my civics correctly.

But, surprisingly, Bolton unknowingly answered his own question a bit later. He stated that elected officials should be judged by their effectiveness. In other words, the point of having elections may be to have the people choose which policies their government should effectuate. Not to have them choose which policies their government will shout about while utterly failing to advance. Recognizing the thin ice onto which he had skated, and after the audience chuckled, Bolton changed his wording ("effectiveness" became "actions"), and returned to the voter loyalty point etc.

Smartly, Stewart retorted "if you you'll give us the first part of that, we'll let you have the rest of it". Bolton was as deer in the headlights as Bush would have been. Then the show ended. Too bad.

Leadership, finally

It seems the Bushies may have caught on to what Chavez has been building in the Western Hemisphere for a number of years. W took his recent trip through Latin America. And though I suppose it is better for him to go than not (Andy Rooney, what do you think?), being a casual observer of the headlines, I can't escape the sense of W as a kind of late tag along, showing up on the playground only once Chavez' ballgame is well underway.

Does anybody think W knows what Chavez has underway in Bolivia and Ecuador? How about in the Eastern Caribbean? Argentina? I would bet that Cuba gets more airtime in the White House discussions of Chavez than all the rest of the region combined. (At least we're not ignoring Cuba, though, as those concerned with the war on terror might have feared.)

Now, don't get me wrong. W's trip was all about leadership - showing the Brazilians a thing or two about the alternative energy industry - and persuading the region that we care - confirming to the Mexicans that the US is really quite keen for more traders to cross the border (this one is a "strong view").

I'd say Chavez is squarely in check now. A good expenditure of US taxpayer dollars. Thanks W.