Bush goes limp as Condi dances with Kim Jong Il
Washington Post - July 19, 2006
Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush’s Foreign Policy By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer
At a moment when his conservative coalition is already under strain
over domestic policy, President Bush is facing a new and swiftly
building backlash on the right over his handling of foreign affairs.
Conservative intellectuals and commentators who once lauded Bush for
what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and
advance U.S. interests said in interviews that they perceive timidity
and confusion about long-standing problems including Iran and North
Korea, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between
Israel and Hezbollah.
“It is Topic A of every single conversation,” said Danielle Pletka,
vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American
Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in
staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. “I don’t have a
friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the
conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside
themselves with fury at the administration.”
Conservatives complain that the United States is hunkered down in
Iraq without enough troops or a strategy to crush the insurgency.
They see autocrats in Egypt and Russia cracking down on dissenters
with scant comment from Washington, North Korea firing missiles
without consequence, and Iran playing for time to develop nuclear
weapons while the Bush administration engages in fruitless diplomacy
with European allies. They believe that a perception that the
administration is weak and without options is emboldening Syria and
Iran and the Hezbollah radicals they help sponsor in Lebanon.
Most of the most scathing critiques of the administration from
erstwhile supporters are being expressed within think tanks and in
journals and op-ed pages followed by a foreign policy elite in
Washington and New York.
But the Bush White House has always paid special attention to the
conversation in these conservative circles. Many of the
administration’s signature ideas — regime change in Iraq, and
special emphasis on military “preemption” and democracy building
around the globe — first percolated within this intellectual
community. In addition, these voices can be a leading indicator of
how other conservatives from talk radio to Congress will react to
policies.
As the White House listens to what one official called the
“chattering classes,” it hears a level of disdain from its own side
of the ideological spectrum that would have been unthinkable a year
ago. It is an odd irony for a president who has inflamed liberals and
many allies around the world for what they see as an overly
confrontational, go-it-alone approach. The discontent on the right
could also color the 2008 presidential debate.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a bid for
president, called the administration’s latest moves abroad a form of
appeasement. “We have accepted the lawyer-diplomatic fantasy that
talking while North Korea builds bombs and missiles and talking while
the Iranians build bombs and missiles is progress,” he said in an
interview. “Is the next stage for Condi to go dancing with Kim Jong
Il?” he asked, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
the North Korean leader.
“I am utterly puzzled,” Gingrich added.
Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms-control official who is
close to Vice President Cheney, said he believes foreign policy
innovation for White House ended with Bush’s second inaugural
address, a call to spread democracy throughout the world.
“What they are doing on North Korea or Iran is what [Sen. John F.]
Kerry would do, what a normal middle-of-the-road president would do,”
he said. “This administration prided itself on molding history, not
just reacting to events. Its a normal foreign policy right now. It’s
the triumph of Kerryism.”
Not all conservatives subscribe to such views. Some prominent
conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr. and George Will, have
been skeptical of the mission in Iraq and, in Will’s case, much of
the ability of America to build democracy abroad. In his syndicated
column yesterday, Will referred to the neoconservative complaints in
observing that the administration is “suddenly receiving some
criticism so untethered from reality as to defy caricature.”
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the president listens to all
these criticisms but believes that aggressive diplomacy is paying off
by bringing other countries into his effort to isolate North Korea
and Iran. “Some people are impatient with the pace of diplomacy,” he
said. “But the president believes it is important to have an all-out
effort to solve these problems in a peaceful way.”
GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, appear to be lining up closely with the
president on foreign policy. It has not helped the neoconservative
case, perhaps, that the occupation of Iraq has not gone as smoothly
as some had predicted.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading conservative who has clashed with
the White House on spending and immigration, said Bush has “shown
toughness and grit in advancing America’s interests in the world.”
Other lawmakers said it is unrealistic to expect different policies
on Iran and North Korea given the complexities involved with forcing
those countries to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
“There haven’t been a lot of alternatives presented,” said Sen. John
E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
In fact, it has been Bush’s willingness to respond to criticism from
the foreign policy establishment — which has long urged him to do
more to pursue a more “multilateral” diplomacy in concert with allies
– that has led to distress among many conservatives outside
Congress, particularly the band of aggressive “neoconservatives” who
four years ago were most enthusiastic about the Iraq war.
Bill Kristol and colleagues associated with his Weekly Standard have
been agitating for several years about what they see as inadequate
troop levels in Iraq, an incompetently managed war effort and a
failure to move aggressively enough to defeat the insurgency.
For many neoconservatives, a final straw came with the U.S. decision
to offer direct talks and potential benefits to Iran as an inducement
to curb its nuclear program. There appears little confidence that
Bush will be able to muster support for strong international action
against Iran, including air strikes to take out nuclear facilities.
“They are starting to see multilateral talks as an end to
themselves,” said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. “They are fooling themselves to think it could lead to
tough sanctions.”
Kenneth R. Weinstein, head of the conservative Hudson Institute,
seemed more forgiving, recalling “the fury of the right” at Ronald
Reagan in his second term for engaging then-Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev. “Bush — like Truman and Reagan — is under attack from
the left and the right,” he said. “Given the laundry list of global
challenges, the administration has had to make dozens and dozens of
tough calls — and overwhelmingly it’s been right.”