Repairing Bush's Foreign Policy Mess

Nothing new or radical, but a good summary critique of Bush's foreign policy. To read rest of article, click on the post title above

How Bush can start fixing his policy failures

By Strobe Talbott

Published: December 19 2006 02:00 | Last updated: December 19 2006 02:00, Financial Times

The US faces in Iraq what could be the most consequential foreign-policy debacle in its history. The only other contender for that distinction is the Vietnam war. But Vietnam was a unitary state that had been artificially - and therefore temporarily - divided, while Iraq was an artificially united state that perhaps has now been permanently divided. Moreover, Iraq, unlike Vietnam, is surrounded by dominoes.

The origins of the looming -catastrophe go back to the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency. In his first nine months in office, the administration virtually suspended diplomacy in the Middle East and weakened or nullified a range of multilateral agreements. The result was widespread resentment over America's apparent disregard for international law, institutions, treaties and alliances.

After the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration squandered an instantaneous outpouring of goodwill. It rejected an unprecedented offer from Nato to deploy troops alongside US forces in Afghanistan and used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for invading Iraq, in part by "connecting the dots" between Afghan-based terrorism and Iraqi totalitarianism, even though the two phenomena were separate. The Iraq invasion was the high-water mark of Bush unilateralism and the low-water mark of America's standing in the world's eyes.

In the years ahead, the US will need maximum participation and trust from the international community, especially for the "diplomatic offensive" recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Study Group on Iraq. That will require not just a new approach to Iraq but an overhaul of US foreign policy. Yet the reluctance with which Mr Bush gave up on his effort to keep John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations suggests either that he does not understand the extent to which Mr Bolton personified the administration's contempt for the world body - or worse, does not care. Whatever course the president chooses in Iraq, he will need the UN. He should appoint a new UN ambassador who is inclined and empowered to strengthen an institution the US has systematically undercut in recent years. With this in mind, Mr Bush should meet early in the new year with Ban Ki-moon, incoming secretary-general, and help him establish the best possible relationship between the UN and the Congress....

The writer, president of the Brookings Institution, was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration and is writing a book on global governance