The end of cowboy diplomacy - Why the 'Bush Doctrine' no longer works for Bush administration
A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory.
And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland.
Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.
Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.
The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.
I liked this article because it shows in good detail the media bias here, first they go into great detail of all of Bush's failures just to make sure they are fresh in your mind before you read the article. While I agree Bush is trying to mend his image and hoping to project a more team oriented approach to government he needs to realize the rest of the world is fearful of war and will not step up and do what is sometimes necessary in order to protect the interests of the Western World - I say Western World because who stands to gain from the war in Iraq the Western World.
Bush is trying to find his middle ground but he can't escape his lone ranger approach to international relations. The US is the hedgemon and with that we deserve a degree of respect and freedom, when your the alpha male you call the shots correct. It's difficult when your policy which could help millions is being stomped on by a nation of 1 million, in the middle of no where, with no political influence, just because they don't like it. Where the rest of the world turns a blind eye to human rights abuses just because they lack the will to fight. The Bush lead government is trying to do what they view as correct and necessary for the world to continue on and to protect the status quo. While many want the status quo changed the US is the hedgemon and with it comes the right to decide what we do and how we exert our power.
We live in confusing and stressful times where the line between right and wrong or even good and evil are becoming much more subjective and lie entirely upon the values/morals for the person who is looking at said event.
So who is in the right here who has the moral authority to wag war, answer both of them because we live in a world where any cause is noble so long as your a good spindoctor.
While the Palestinians are in deed supporting terroism it's their only means to fight off an oppressive regime that has taken lands they had previously held for centuries, theirs is a noble fight since they are fighting for their own survival.
Israel is waged in a fight for their own survival, they have been given a chance for peace
and security within a nation of their own, a refuge where the rest of the world can not oppress or attack them, they have come back to reclaim their birthright and once again come home to Israel superior, but they have constantly attacked by a hate mongering populas hell bent in destroying them and even refusing to acknowledge that Israeli's have a right to exist.