Presidential Diplomacy

The only wisdom more conventional than "Bush is a liar and a moron" is that America's foreign policy failed because the President is "undiplomatic." If only Bush had reasoned with "Old Europe" and the UN, so they say, all would be well. The Administration's heavy-handed "unilateralism" supposedly unnecessarily complicated the Iraq war. (Candidate Kerry agrees; see tpfp post 2/18 3:28am.)

This time, the conventional wisdom is wrong. The UN Security Council ratified 17 resolutions threatening Iraq with military force and then--at the last moment--decided they were kidding. Once France and Russia said "Nyet," America had two options: continue or capitulate. Wisely, Bush persevered. But Russia and the chocolate-producing nations (France, Germany, Belgium) never intended to fight, no matter the volume of Foggy-bottom flattery. This may be because many of our "allies" (and their politicians) were poodles on Saddam's payroll. (See tpfp post 2/9 6:12pm.) In any event, further protracted but polite palaver would not have prevented war.

That's old news. The real question is why the pro-diplomacy crowd won't credit Bush's unquestioned foreign policy successes. Last month, American diplomats got Libya to end its nuclear program--which the CIA hadn't even detected! Col. Gaddafi volunteered the information, and the commitment, because he feared becoming another Iraq. And Saturday's WaPo revealed a new agreement with Liberia permitting our navy to board and search Liberian-flag ships we believe are carrying illicit weapons. (Also noted in a subscriber-only WSJ article today.) Because Liberia has the second largest ship registry (after Panama), the agreement will enhance our ability to track and interdict illicit weapons. Neither the UN nor continental Europe have a navy; today, only America can help.

Both agreements are diplomatic triumphs. Each genuinely could make the world safer. There's even precedent for a super-power using sea-power unilaterally to enforce emerging morality: that's how Britain's Royal Navy halted the slave trade in the mid-1800s. But does President Bush get credit? Hardly. The Administration barely gets a mention, much less praise. And the smart-set still "knows" the President's a dreadful diplomat.

Diplomacy is more than just honey and bullshit. (Sometimes, one must eat cocktail party Canapes! Kidding.) When two countries disagree, silver tongued State Department bureaucrats can't just pretend otherwise. Well, they can, but hedging resolves nothing. Such dithering can kill--as it did in Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Since World War II, America has endeavored to nurture democracy and protect the weak worldwide. We're proud of this record--and should be. Americans also are friendly, anxious to please and be respected. These ideals can clash. Bill Clinton persuaded the world to love him--and so let Osama and Saddam snowball. President Bush deploys military clout to protect America and topple tyranny--even if reviled as a result. Perhaps Plato's ideal philosopher-king could be equally assertive and admired. No mortal President can--or should.

America must remain respected and effective. In other words, Americans want to be both loved and feared. Me too. But, if I must choose, I'd rather be feared. I'll bet the Afghani and Iraqi people agree.