3-22-06, 10:46 am

The Bush administration’s foreign policy, especially over the past four and a half years or so, has been an object lesson in the problems a global empire faces when it tries to solve most of its problems by force, coercion, or diktat.

In the process of carrying out an offensive that was meant to establish and assert an unchallenged and unchallengeable American supremacy, the Bush administration has:

Been fought to a standstill in Iraq by a rag-tag insurgency armed with AK-47’s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and which has little or no coherent political vision, in the process losing over 2300 soldiers. At one stroke, removed Iran’s biggest worry in the region, Saddam Hussein, and allowed Iranian influence into Iraq at the highest levels. Provoked a standoff with Iran for which the United States has no good solution – to the point that some members of the foreign policy establishment are suggesting that in the long run the United States will simply have to live with Iran as a nuclear power. Made Iraq a haven for jihadists. Turned world opinion, especially among Muslims, sharply against the United States and its policies. Pushed North Korea to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and become a nuclear power, confirming it even more in its unassailability. Revealed the tightness and precariousness of the global oil market, on which all modern life depends. Heavily damaged U.S. credibility in regard to claims about weapons of mass destruction or anything else having to do with intelligence. Heavily damaged U.S. legitimacy with regard to claims about human rights, democracy, transparency, and accountability, in part through the creation of a global secret gulag where people are tortured and into which innocent people disappear. Traumatized its own military to the point that it sharply rejects the idea of getting into anything like the Iraq occupation in the near future.

And that’s just for starters.

In a position like this, a rational administration would back down and change course. Indeed, it has been beset by a chorus of calls from the foreign policy establishment to, among other things,

Repudiate the so-called 'pre-emption doctrine.' Stop torture and dismantle or restructure its global gulag. Come clean with the American people about its failures in Iraq.

The administration has not been completely immune to the pressures of reality. In particular, it has finally come up with a rational strategy in Iraq that is sharply different from earlier ones. It also spent a good deal of time trying to mend fences with Europe and create a united front on Iran and its potential nuclear program.

But, basically, the administration’s strategy has been to reject all criticism and declare success. On Sunday talk shows for the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, administration officials claimed that Iraq was very far from a civil war, even as the death toll after the Samarra mosque bombing climbs to 2000. Dick Cheney even suggested that those like Zarqawi who have been trying to foment civil war have 'reached a stage of desperation,' echoing his fatuous statement last summer that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.'

The newly promulgated 2006 National Security Strategy is another case in point. It declares the Bush foreign policy a great success, reaffirms the preemption doctrine, and singles Iran out as a near-term candidate for regime change.

To the old rogues’ list of the State Department, which has now shrunk to Cuba, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, it adds Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe as dictatorships that must go – a new 7-country 'axis of evil.' We are currently witnessing one thrust against Belarus, although it is almost certain to fail.

Bush’s democratic logorrhea reaches extreme heights in the new NSS – the word 'democracy' appears 52 times, 'democracies' 29 times, and 'democratic' 43 times. In the coded language of U.S. foreign policy, this suggests that the United States intend to throw its weight around a lot. The document is rather elliptical on the question of significant use of military force, a big open question. When similar language was used on Iraq in the past, it was a cinch Iraq would be invaded; this time, the situation is not so clear, because of past failures and because of the deep irrationality of striking Iran. Still, the new NSS reopens a question that should have been closed. The Bush administration seems as committed to irrationality as it ever was.

From Empire Notes