Musings on the Economist

Last week's edition of the Economist had two articles (this one and this one) on America's failed foreign policy in the age of Bush. Random observations:

- As far as failed foreign policy is concerned, George Bush is, in the eyes of the Economist, Jimmy Carter:

But for a growing number of Americans the superpower's inability to impose its will on Mesopotamia is symptomatic of a deeper malaise... If America were a stock, it would be a “buy”: an undervalued market leader, in need of new management. But that points to its last great strength. More than any rival, America corrects itself. Under pressure from voters, Mr Bush has already rediscovered some of the charms of multilateralism; he is talking about climate change; a Middle East peace initiative is possible. Next year's presidential election offers a chance for renewal. Such corrections are not automatic: something (a misadventure in Iran?) may yet compound the misery of Iraq in the same way Watergate followed Vietnam. But America recovered from the 1970s. It will bounce back stronger again.

- But why must they take gratuitous swipes at Democrats?

Yet in one way Mr Bush is unfairly maligned. Contrary to the Democratic version of history, America did not enjoy untrammelled influence abroad before he arrived. The country that won the cold war also endured several grievous reverses, notably Vietnam (where 58,000 Americans were killed—16 times the figure for Iraq). Iran has been defying America since Jimmy Carter's presidency, and North Korea for a generation before that. As for soft power, France has been complaining about Coca-Cola and Hollywood for nearly a century.

What Democrats claimed that the US enjoyed "untrammelled influence abroad" before Bush arrived? I haven't heard Democrats say much beyond that Clinton had a reasonably successful foreign policy, and Bush, well, not so much. This is a pathetic little paragraph.

- After detailing how the Iraq war has stretched the US military to the breaking point, the Economist says in its infinite wisdom: "Clearly America needs a bigger army." No: America needs fewer wars. When you realize that your army isn't big enough to conquer and occupy a nation of 25 million, putting down multiple insurrections therein and preventing a civil war, the logical thing to do is to vow never again to try to do such a thing again unless your nation's survival depends on it.

- Condoleeza Rice is quoted as saying in October 2000, in the context of opposing using the US military in "nation-building",

“We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten.”

Well, it was the 101st Airborne rather than the 82nd that was sent to Little Rock in 1957, and it was to escort high school students to school rather kindergarteners. Still, what odd psychological neuroses caused her to pull that metaphor out of her brain?