USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011114.0623 (On Screen): Diplomats and intellectuals observing the UN are dismayed by President Bush's "You're with us or you're against us" speech.

In comments before the assembly of more than 1,000 delegates, the president warned that some states, "while pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N., have cast their lot with the terrorists," alluding to Iraq. There will be "a price to be paid," Bush said.

That message has some diplomats and U.N.-watchers wondering how Washington will simultaneously hold together its coalition while broadening its war aims. Meanwhile, a growing number of U.N. members are signaling a waning appetite for Bush's "with-us-or-against-us" campaign.

I don't think it's sunk in yet that we're not interested in permanent coalitions here. If it becomes a choice between continuing to fight this war and maintaining a coalition, then the coalition can take a flying leap. This war is going to be fought, and the US is quite willing and capable of going it alone. But if we're forced to do so, then a lot of nations will get asked searching questions afterwards.

The president's good-vs.-evil rhetoric also denies shades of gray, says Richard Falk, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. Such language "implies too much clarity in a world that's much messier than that," he says. "It shows a lack of respect for the sovereignty of other countries and may place them between contradictory pressures."

President Bush's with-us-or-against-us slogan was an effective rallying tool following the Sept. 11 suicide attacks. But the power of those words is fading with every civilian casualty in Afghanistan and could even be polarizing opposition to the U.S. course.

It also hasn't apparently sunk in that President Bush is doing this deliberately. He is trying to force other countries to make decisions forthrightly and to get off the fence. And while civilian casualties in Afghanistan "could" polarize opposition against the US (note that this is a supposition by the reporter and not actually an established fact) a complete victory there probably will have the opposite effect.

By contrast, says one analyst, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is making a convincing case. "Blair is not boxing leaders in, but saying, 'This is the moral imperative, this is the task at hand, will you help us?'" says Scott Lasensky, a Mideast expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Apparently Lasensky isn't familiar with the "Good cop, bad cop" approach to diplomacy. Bush is being the bad cop, Blair the good cop. After the Bush's bellicosity, Blair's apparent reasonableness can be all the more effective. Hasn't it occurred to Lasensky that Bush is doing this deliberately?

In fact, this criticism still is treating Bush like the thick-headed cowboy from Texas, ignoring the fact that so far this war has been prosecuted with great subtlety and restraint. There are wheels within wheels. And indeed immediately after asking "Why should anyone cooperate in this?" the article proceeds to list all the ways in which the US is using diplomatic and economic influence to persuade others to cooperate. So far I'm quite impressed with how this is going, and I'm quite happy to let this administration stay the course. (discuss)