[img]1640|right|Arthur Christopher Schaper||no_popup[/img]Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer is one of the most compelling minds in newsprint.
His caution and his craft bring a medical precision to political debate. A former liberal and onetime speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale, Mr. Krauthammer converted to the right side after reading of Harvard Prof. Charles Murray Read’s work Losing Ground that documented, then denounced, the American welfare system. Prof. Murray’s research convinced Mr. Krauthammer to reject government intervention and favor free market reforms to bring back people from poverty.
Still a pro-choice liberal on social issues, Mr. Krauthammer remains a reliable conservative voice on everything else. His foreign policy views, however, have veered from the mid-20th century polemics of Mr. Conservative, the late Ohio senator, Robert A. Taft, and even the careful advances of President Eisenhower.
An early champion of the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Krauthammer coined the Bush Doctrine phrase because of the President’s insistence on forging democratic regimes for our benefit. Mr. Krauthammer recently praised former President Bush for keeping us safe. Reviewing the military’s extended stay in Iraq, and ongoing presence in Afghanistan, Mr. Krauthammer’s vision of a robust foreign policy based on American pre-eminence and dominance is waning.
Like many Bush supporters, I celebrated the invasion of Iraq following reports that the dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The drive to eradicate unwieldy, violent dictators in the Middle East appealed to me, and many voters. Eradicating the roots of terrorist cells seemed like the wisest course for preventing attacks on our soil.
They Sounded Impressive
Such Wilsonian aspirations were stirring in those early days of the Bush administration. Even former Clinton diplomats praised President Bush for removing Saddam from power. “He was a weapon of mass destruction,” one man said. The Washington Post later reported that American forces uncovered a large cache of chemical agents. The Wikileaks cables also vindicated President Bush, with reports that the American military still was looking for WMD. Mr. Bush was right, according to Mr. Krauthammer.
[img]2110|left|Charles Krauthammer||no_popup[/img]Following years of Middle East fighting, though, the Krauthammer dogma of throwing everything military at Islamic terror no longer has the grandiose appeal of years before.
Indeed, President Bush’s second inaugural claimed that the peace of our democracy depended on democracy flourishing in other countries. The idealism of expanding American limited government, chasing freedom rainbows in the vapid deserts of Asia motivated voters. However, Natan Sharanksy, the same Russian-born Israeli civil rights activist who welcomed Mr. Bush’s military intentions, also criticized the zeal to hold elections in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. A free society, said Mr. Sharansky, must be based on more than open elections. The rule of law, respect for human rights (including freedom of speech, the press, and religion) must be inculcated. Can native peoples learn about their own cultures and share their values with their children, too?
Answers to those four questions ranged from “sometimes” to “no!” during the fraught American ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Krauthammer’s conviction of a robust intervention foreign policy has fallen apart. His mixed neo-conservative idealism is now a nightmare from which our military must free itself. This is the ideology the Republican party is breaking from. Voters across the spectrum reject it in increasing turns.
The United States cannot go about the world putting out every tribal disturbance. During the Bush Presidency, intelligence regarding radioactive explosives in Niger was flawed. American reconnaissance missed the Arab uprisings in Tunisia, then throughout the Arab lands. The ethnic, religious, and blood-bathed tribal rivalries detonated throughout North Africa, all the way to Central Asia, including the protracted civil wars in Egypt and Syria. They are beyond the control of any policy expert or President to control.
We Cannot Be Everywhere
President Bush’s wars in Iraq may or may not have sparked the spirit of uprising in oppressed, indigenous communities throughout the Arab world. Yet the cost of policing the world, plus ruinous domestic policies of expanding home ownership, helped propel nationwide financial meltdowns that threw the planet into an unprecedented stagnating economic slowdown. The Arab sphere has been rife with corruption and despotism for decades. But safety within a predictable poverty was tolerable. With the explosion of communications technology, matched with an unsettled yet educated Arab populace, a revolt against political oppression was inevitable.
The same forces that have propelled political anarchy throughout the Middle East resist American diplomacy. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) repeatedly has pressed for ending foreign aid to all nations including Israel (“They do not need our help”) and Egypt (“We cannot help them”). Despite their deep division, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-NC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have joined Mr. Paul on this issue. Mr. Krauthammer contends that their agreement on anything cannot be good.
I disagree.
President Bush’s interventions have not created popular democracy envisioned by the Framers. The Arab turmoil roiling the Middle East defies political calculation. Cultural aftershocks are as unpredictable as the sudden revolts unpredicted by American intelligence. Thankfully, for the good of this country and the Republican party, Mr. Krauthammer’s neo-conservatism is coming to an end.
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A lifelong Southern California resident, he currently lives in Torrance.
Twitter – @ArthurCSchaper
https://www.facebook.com/arthurchristopher.schaper
arthurschaper@hotmail.com
aschaper1.blogspot.com
asheisministries.blogspot.com
waxmanwatch.blogspot.com
