questions for bush supporters

There are a couple of serious questions I have for Bush supporters in this entry. If you want to engage in a reasonable discussion, from either side, please feel free to post comments, otherwise, just rant on your own blog (remember that my comments are now moderated, ahem, "preemtively" :)).

There are a number of things that I can't quite get my mind wrapped around---reinforced by results such as those presented by this survey (PDF) and later others like this one. Now, the first survey was discussed a lot a while ago, when it showed that a relatively large percentage of the US population (20-30%) believed true a number of things that had been proven false or whever obviously false. Another survey (one that I can't find a link for right now) showed that a large percentage of those people were actually Bush supporters, and that many of them simply thought that this information was being given to them by the administration. Among them: that the Iraq war had widespread support world-wide, that WMD were found in Iraq, that Iraq had an active nuclear program, and, finally (and more importantly), that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11.

Now, if someone believes all of that, whether they want to believe it, or they have been influenced by Bush campaign pronouncements, or whatever, then it's almost impossible for them to do anything but be Bush supporters. Because everything you hear from the "outside" will flatly contradict any of those statements. And because if those statements were to be true, then Bush would be making a stronger case for re-election. "Believers" of this type exist in both camps I think, but they're not the ones that decide elections.

But clearly there are Bush supporters, or "undecided" supporters, that know that none of those statements are true. They are aware of the realities worldwide. They know that clear majorities of the population world-wide (along with 40% of the US population) and most governments in the world opposed a non-UN-sanctioned Iraq War II. They know that no WMD were found in Iraq, only "WMD-capability-development-related-programs" to quote US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. They also know that Iraq did not have an active nuclear program, and that it was not directly responsible for 9/11 (let's set aside that pesky issue of the Iraq-Al Qaida "contacts" for the moment).

Because these Bush supporters know all this, they have a bit more, er, "nuanced" arguments for the invasion of Iraq. The weakest ancillary reasons are that it was right on principle, right for humanitarian reasons, etc. But the most important reason is a combination of the Bush administration's strategy of pre-emtion and its strategy for countering world-wide terrorism, which, is fairly straightforward (at least in theory) as far as I understand it: if you spread democracy, by force or otherwise, eventually you create conditions that make the terrorists disappear. In the meantime, the "show of force" of pre-emption will keep the US "safe".

So far so good.

If I am right in understanding the Bush "doctrine" and strategy, and I think I am, then there are a couple of things I'd like to ask any reasonable Bush supporter.

1) If you support pre-emption as a doctrine, what to make of Iran and North Korea? Why is Pakistan allowed to operate essentially as a rogue agent in a worldwide nuclear black market? The typical answer to this is that you can't go after everyone at once (I will get to the problem this presents to the "freedom strategy" in a minute, but for the moment let's set that aside) which is fine. However, the Bush administration has been downright amicable with both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the first being the foremost financer of terrorism in the world, and the second being the current hotel-of-choice of Bin Ladin. Second, and more importantly, if we're all agreed that the biggest threat comes from non-state actors such as Al-Qaida, then why minimize the results of intelligence and police action and maximize the importance of military action and threat against state actors?

2) If you believe in the "freedom strategy", how is it that it's ok that of three of the most important "allies" in the US "war on terror", two are dictatorships (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and one has slid from democracy to near-authoritarian rule in the last two years (Russia)? Btw, I put "war on terror" between quotes because I don't believe you can wage war on a noun, or to be less glib, on a tactic.

You see, my problem with the Bush doctrine/strategy goes to its core. On one hand, it is a strategy of loosely-defined high ideals ("everyone will embrace freedom and so our task is to spread freedom") coupled with a confusingly machiavellian pragmatism ("Pakistan is an ally"-- even though they broke the NPT, they are responsible for North Korea's and Iran's nukes, they have been beligerent in a highly unstable region, they literally created the Taliban, and now provide a home-away-from-home for Al-Qaida).

Put another way, I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) an idealistic strategy that rejects "realism", and I can understand the Kissinger/Brzezinski "realism" that brought us here (the "domino theory" used throughout the cold war, through Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq/Iran, etc).

What I can't understand is an idealistic strategy that decries "realism" but nevertheless engages on it on a daily basis (witness the constant pragmatic adjustments to the situation in Iraq), and then says that it isn't doing it.

If anyone's up for explaining this disconnect to me and why, on this particular area, they still support Bush's reelection because of it, that'd be great. By the way, I'm not interested in "Kerry is bad" or whatever. I would like to hear positive reasons, not negative ones.

Tomorrow, a couple of questions on the economy.

PS: Link to this post so that more people see it (and maybe are able to comment on it) will be appreciated. :)

georgewbush.com blocks out the world

If this isn't a perfect metaphor for the Bush administration's attitude towards the world, I don't know what is. [via Dave].