BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY

For some time I have been thinking about Bush’s foreign policy as it relates to larger themes in American foreign policy. Because of Iraq it is difficult to deal with this issue because the left castigates Bush and his decision while the neocons praise his resolution The left would have us believe that Bush has unilaterally sent America down a new path introducing such policies as preemptive war and having this idiotic idea that somehow America can bring democracy to the world. I have begun to think that Bush may have more in common with the Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who at the end of WWI also had this idea of creating a new world order and saw a political messianic mission for the USA.

I just finished an excellent article in Diplomatic History, “Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign Policies” (June 2006) by Lloyd E. Ambrosius which tries to assess this same problem. He surveys of number of scholars and journalists who have written on both sides of this debate. As with all discussion of parallels nothing is ever exact and one can find similarities and differences. In his concluding remarks Ambrosius stated: Appealing to the old American hope of “freedom just around the corner,” both Wilson and Bush proclaimed American ideals to justify their new foreign policies. Whether in 1917 or 2001 or 2003, they led the nation into war, promising to protect traditional values and institutions at home and to explain these abroad, thereby making freedom and democracy the foundation for world peace.

Later he writes: After World War I, Wilson failed to make the world safe for democracy. His experience suggests that fighting wars to spread democracy and thereby attain perpetual peace is more likely to result in unanticipated costs and unintended consequences.

Yet the comparisons go deeper and may become even more confusing. While one can find a number of parallels between Bush and Wilson, it appears to me that Wilson was much less willing to use force after getting the US into WWI. For example, he did not send American troops in to stop the Turkish massacre of Christian Armenians. Yet I am not sure Bush would have either in that case. Also Wilson was much more willing to use international organizations to complete his vision (the League of Nations). However, Bush may also be in the process, especially with Korea, of limiting US unilaterial involvement.

It’s hardly fair to summarize an article into these few words, but it is worth the read because I believe Ambrosius has done an excellent job of summarizing the issues (much better than the talking heads on CNN and Fox).