NationStates Jolt Archive

From Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,523991,00.html)


'Bush's Foreign Policy Is in Free Fall'

Former US Diplomat John Bolton is no longer in office, but he still has a lot to say about American foreign policy. SPIEGEL spoke to him about Bush's softness abroad, Rice having been taken hostage by the liberal State Department, and why it doesn't matter that the world hates the US.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Ambassador, you worked closely with the president and you shared his hawkish views on Iraq. But your new book is fiercely critical of George W. Bush. Why?

Bolton: His foreign policy is in free fall. The president is turning against his own best judgment and instincts under the influence of Secretary (of State Condoleeza) Rice. She is the dominant voice, indeed, almost the only voice on foreign policy in this administration.

SPIEGEL: The popular reading of her looks a bit different. She is presumed to be weak and not particularly efficient.

Bolton: No. Rice is channeling the views of the liberal career bureaucrats in the State Department. The president is focusing all his attention on Iraq and, by doing so, has allowed the secretary to become captured by the State Department. He is not adequately supervising her. It is a mistake.

SPIEGEL: Could it be that your pique really comes from the fact that the president doesn't seem to be listening to neoconservatives like you anymore?

Bolton: The vice president (Vice President Dick Cheney) is still there. But the idea that somehow the neocons were so powerful is a myth -- I mean, it was five or six people, for God sakes. I am not a neoconservative. I am pro-American.

SPIEGEL: You have said that the new moderate foreign policy currently being followed by Bush compromises the security of the United States.

Bolton: Well, I think so. North Korea is going to get away with keeping its nuclear weapons. I think the (National Intelligence Estimate) sends Iran a signal they can do whatever they want...

SPIEGEL: ...You are talking about the recent report by US intelligence services that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 ...

Bolton: Yes. For 12 hours after the NIE announcement, there was not a word from Iran. They were sitting there in Teheran saying: "What devious trick are the Americans playing on us now?" They couldn't believe it and finally declared victory.

SPIEGEL: In the past, you argued for a military intervention in Iran. Do you still consider that an option?

Bolton: I don't have the same high confidence these intelligence analysts do that, in fact, there was a full suspension of the military program in Iran. This is not like those claims about Cheney pressuring the poor intelligence community to spin intelligence on Iraq. This is politicization from the other side -- people in the intelligence community allowing policy preferences to affect their analysis and judgments about the intelligence.

SPIEGEL: And where is the president? Is he merely a puppet?

Bolton: Look at the North Korean policy. The North Koreans certainly were involved in that facility in Syria that was raided by the Israelis. The North Koreans renege on their commitments and we still negotiate.

SPIEGEL: What do you see as the alternative -- bombing Pyongyang?

Bolton: I'm not running around the world looking for ways to create hostilities. The solution to North Korea is the reunification of the Korean Peninsula. China could influence the North; it supplies 80 to 90 percent of North Korea's energy. The United States have to put pressure on China in order for China to pressure North Korea.

SPIEGEL: Do you have any second thoughts about the American engagement in Iraq?

Bolton: It was right to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It was the regime itself that was a threat. I think in hindsight, what I would have done is turn authority back over to Iraqis much more quickly and say: "Your country, you figure out how to run it."

SPIEGEL: Would you say the world is now a safer place than before the Iraq war?

Bolton: Yes. There is now no possibility that Iraq is going to have weapons of mass destruction. We had the ancillary strategic victory when (Libyan leader) Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program as well. When he looked at Saddam, he concluded -- incorrectly -- that he might be next.

SPIEGEL: You don't seem to doubt the go-it-alone approach of the United States although anti-Americanism is rising across the world. Doesn't such a negative view of America weaken US power?

Bolton: I don't think so. I have looked at public opinion polls in France in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the height of Marshall Plan aid. They had a very negative attitude towards the United States then. There were negative attitudes towards the United States because of Vietnam. There were negative attitudes about the United States when Reagan wanted to deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles. I don't think the president should base his foreign policy on American public opinion polls, let alone foreign public opinion polls.

SPIEGEL: What kind of foreign policy will the next president pursue?

Bolton: If you get a President (Hillary) Clinton, you might well find, just as after Vietnam, that there is a retraction from Iraq and of American influence in the world. And in a couple of years the Europeans will be complaining about that too. See how long American troops last in Europe under an administration that thinks it is time for America to come home.

SPIEGEL: Is that a threat?

Bolton: No. The European Union can now act like a major power, at least that is what the European Union tells us. So they should do so -- they can experiment with Russia.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Ambassador, thank very much for taking the time to speak with us.

Interview conducted by Cordula Meyer


The parts where Bolton said the Iraq War has made the world safer, and where he said Hillary Clinton being elected would bring a "retraction from Iraq and of American influence in the world" especially made me LOL.

Is he really so lost in this "us versus them" menality? ("them" evidently being the "liberals", the "russians", the "EU", and any other entity or vague construct he deems appropriate during that interview).

Or is it just really poor show for the public?

I would hate to think that a top statesman in all actuality was stuck thinking like that.

I loved the bit where he gets asked "Could it be that your pique really comes from the fact that the president doesn't seem to be listening to neoconservatives like you anymore?" - that really seems to hit the nail on the head.

But then he just reinforces my concern of his worldview with the response "No - I'm pro-american!" like he's one of the few last people that actually loves his country.

I suppose he might really believe it - it would be a great way to overly aggrandise your accomplishments I'm sure. But I'd very much hope this isn't the case.

I wonder what the Shrub saw in the Walrus in the first place.

I got to "liberal" and stopped reading. It is obviously a load of fucking crap trying to lay the blame on the big scary 'liberal' boogeyman and distract people from Bush fucking up. And I'm pretty sure he is racist.

I wonder what the Shrub saw in the Walrus in the first place.

Shrub and walrus?
what did the plant see in the animal in the first place?
(walrus=animal, shrub=plant).
eep

I got to "liberal" and stopped reading.

Good. The bullshit only becomes more pervasive and smelly as the interview goes on.

From Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,523991,00.html)





The parts where Bolton said the Iraq War has made the world safer, and where he said Hillary Clinton being elected would bring a "retraction from Iraq and of American influence in the world" especially made me LOL.

Oh, I had to lol where he said that he would have handed over Iraq to the Iraqis sooner "Your country, you figure out how to run it"... he conveniently left out "after we destroyed any infrastructure that had survived the previous war and the embargoe and plunged the country into incredible chaos for no reason whatsoever"

Bolton's an idiot.

Bolton's an idiot.

Truer words have never been spoken. :)

In so many areas, both foreign and domestic, the Bush administration is going to go down in history as being wrong. So much so that the only presidents he will be compaired to are Buchanin and Hoover.

Bolton's an idiot.

Indeed. And boy does he sound agressive in the interview.

Truer words have never been spoken. :)

Bush is the idiot :p

Thank god he isn't UN ambassador anymore. I laughed at "I'm no Neocon! I'm just Pro-American!". It's ridiculous when conservatives like Bolton try to wrap themselves in the flag and claim they alone are actually working for the benefit of thier country.

Also, "Here... You figure out how to run your country?". Ugh, no Bolton. How about...

"Hey Iraqi Army? You can keep your jobs, but you're under US command. You keep security, and your Engineer corp can help us rebuild roads and highways."

"Iraqi civil service. Keep at your desks. We need the government ministries to keep working. Firing all of you just because you're lipservice Baathist's would just create bureaucratic chaos!"

"Iraqi companies? You're in charge of rebuilding infrastructure in your country, we need Iraqi's in work. Sorry Halliburton, no contract for you."

"Hi UN. Your agencies are experienced in peacebuilding, and setting up interim governments right? We'd like you to have an expansive role healing the sectarian nature of the country, we could use international advise. Some help organising elections would be great too."

"We caught Saddam? Great. Off to the Hague with you."

In hindsight, that's what I would have done.

The UN's so far screwed up more small countries than the US has, in the past fifty years.

The UN's so far screwed up more small countries than the US has, in the past fifty years.

Well actually I'd say they've done quite well in certain African nations amongst others. I think if the US had applied the lessons the UN learned in East Timor in Iraq, then the Iraq situation would be significantly improved from what it is now.

"Hey Iraqi Army? You can keep your jobs, but you're under US command. You keep security, and your Engineer corp can help us rebuild roads and highways."

"Iraqi civil service. Keep at your desks. We need the government ministries to keep working. Firing all of you just because you're lipservice Baathist's would just create bureaucratic chaos!"

"Iraqi companies? You're in charge of rebuilding infrastructure in your country, we need Iraqi's in work. Sorry Haliburton, no contract for you.".

All of the above save Haliburton were seen as entirely Sunni structures, loyal only to the Sunni population, corrupt to the core, and bitterly hated by the other 75% of Iraq's population which lived as virtual slaves. It would not have worked. It would have either maintained a system of apartheid in which a minority controlled a nation and reaped all the benefit, or exploded into a REAL civil war, the kind that turns cities into deserted ruins and kills millions.

Despite the howling, what's happened so far has been tame, by historical standards.

The new Iraqi Army took four years to create- pretty quickly by world standards!- and is essentially IRAQI (albeit still with a hefty Kurdish chunk.) When they show up, people think IRAQI soldiers and not SUNNI soldiers (Or Sunni controlled soldiers, effectively the same thing.)

This is why Saddam had a three tier army. The basic level Army was mostly Shi'ia, and it sucked. It disintegrated almost immediately in 2003 and was beyond recalling and functioning. It was used only for throwing at Iran and Kuwait. Sunnis always understood that in war, these Shi'ia troops would die in large numbers but the thinking was so what, they are only Shi'ia.

The next level up was the Republical Guard. This was a Sunni Force, and the real muscle. Part of their function was to keep the regular army working- under threat. The Republican Guard was "real" enough to form the basis of a genuine new Iraqi Army, but, this could not happen as it was entirely Sunni in structure. Above that tier, the Fedayeen were basically professional terrorists- useless as a new army. This was not a situation like Germany or Japan, both of which are mostly ethnically homogenous. Putting a reformed Iraqi Army in charge of Iraq in 2003 would be more like telling post-Apartheid South Africans that congratulations, you are now free, but the Boers are going to be running all the military and security services, hope you don't mind. Iraq has some serious internal ethnic issues- the fact that they've been working so hard to kill each other should make this obvious. Preserving the structures that created such hatred would have been disastrous.

Whilst your points regarding the heavy Sunni slant of the various arms of the Iraqi armed forces are indeed very valid, the complete and total dissolution of the regular Iraqi Army and Republican Guard was disastrous, and is the greatest factor when considering the formation of the Iraqi insurgency.

All initial insurgents were elements of the Iraqi army and Guard that had suddenly lost thier jobs, but were allowed to keep all of thier equipment. They were allowed to slip through the net, and loitered in the streets of Baghdad and Basra, out of work.

Hundreds of AK's and other equipment ended up in the hands of criminal gangs and sectarian militia's and the former soldiers, with thier weapons, found work in the newly formed militant groups. It may surprise some to learn that fighting as an insurgent pays very, very well.

The New Iraqi Army could have been much more effective at a much earlier date if the fighting hadn't been between green cadets versus experienced veterans of two Gulf wars and the Iran-Iraq war.

The old Iraqi army, like many armies around the world, also had an experienced Engineering corp, that could have had a much greater role in the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure.

I think keeping the old army, and reforming it would have been a much better decision than dissolving it in it's entirety, and training green recruits to replace all of them.

As idiotic as Bolton is, I did agree with one statement.

Bolton:The European Union can now act like a major power, at least that is what the European Union tells us. So they should do so -- they can experiment with Russia.

I'd be perfectly happy to have US bases in Germany, Italy, the UK and elsewhere removed and our troops restationed here in the U.S.

Why are there so many arguments regarding the deployment of US forces abroad when the nations most capable of reversing the trend do essentially nothing?

Bolton: It was right to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It was the regime itself that was a threat. I think in hindsight, what I would have done is turn authority back over to Iraqis much more quickly and say: "Your country, you figure out how to run it."

Basically: "Bomb them to fuck and back, and then take no responsibility for it..."

What an arse!

This guy has been whinging on every Fox news report he can since he was sacked for being an undiplomatic anti-UN warmonger in a UN diplomatic post, I mean the idea of John Bolton as a rep to the UN makes little sense.

Why are there so many arguments regarding the deployment of US forces abroad when the nations most capable of reversing the trend do essentially nothing?

If the trend is anything at all like how the US demands countries grants their armed forces free reprieve from the Hague, I would imagine subtle and not so subtle threats of economic and political isolation, as well as more belligerent "we're here, and that's that" posturing in order to maintain a land presence better suited to international containment of foreign powers.

The other nations are capable of demanding the US withdraw their forces. I imagine the US administration however, is more than willing to ignore that demand on the grounds of military dominance.

The other nations are capable of demanding the US withdraw their forces. I imagine the US administration however, is more than willing to ignore that demand on the grounds of military dominance.
But whether or not they'd have a legal basis for doing so depends on the terms of the agreements - say those decided upon by NATO.

Not that I could imagine either side benefitting by asking US troops to leave European bases.

But whether or not they'd have a legal basis for doing so depends on the terms of the agreements - say those decided upon by NATO.

And since when has legality been a barrier to the US doing as it pleases?


Not that I could imagine either side benefitting by asking US troops to leave European bases.

Probably not. It would probably be some breach of an obscure NATO clause that would be grounds for some sort of economic and political penalty while the US would lose jurisdiction over those European bases.

The UN's so far screwed up more small countries than the US has, in the past fifty years.

Pure ignorance. Take a look at some history, you might learn something.

Bush's foreign policy has been in free-fall from the day he took office.

Bush's foreign policy has been in free-fall from the day he took office.

Quite possibly since the very second he got into politics. Or the lack thereof.

there is no bush policy. there is a cheney and rand corporation policy of which bush is a hood orniment, though perhapse also a voluntary supporter (to whatever degree, if any, he understands it at all).

it is of course interesting, to see one more of its rats abondoning its sinking ship, or at least abondoning fanaticly verbally supporting it.

=^^=
.../\...

I've always liked Bolton. You have to respect a guy who ignores the makeup staff for a decade.

OK, I only really respect him for the mustache. Call me shallow. :D

EDIT: Oh, and Cameroi, most excellent, yank-bamboozling grammar. Use da spellchecker FTW. "Ornament" in particular.

Shrub and walrus?
what did the plant see in the animal in the first place?
(walrus=animal, shrub=plant).
eepShrub, another word for Bush. Walrusses have large moustaches, very similar to Bolton. Hence Bush receives the nickname "shrub" and Bolton "walrus".

Indeed. And boy does he sound agressive in the interview.

And defensive.

Frustration does that to a man. Its true that blunt personalities like him may be liked by quite a few conservative Americans, but internationally speaking people like Bolton are diplomatic disasters. And of course it's always someone else's fault when things are not going as you imagined in your feverish dreams of a neoconservative world revolution. Welcome to reality, Bolton.

Bush is the idiot :p

Him, too. ;)