domingo, 3 de agosto de 2008

Luttwak, sobre Bush

Mañana publico un post sobre las negociaciones entre gobierno y fujimorismo. Adelanto que la salida de Luis Bromey del Instituto de Medicina Legal me parece muy preocupante. Por ahora recomiendo este polémico artículo, que defiende una posición contraintuitiva. Saludos.

August 2008 149
A Truman for our times
Edward Luttwak

The received wisdom is that President Bush has been a foreign policy disaster, and that America is threatened by the rise of Asia. Both claims are wrong—Bush has successfully rolled back jihadism, and the US will benefit from Asian growth.

That George W Bush's foreign policy has been a total failure is now taken for granted by so many people that one usually hears it stated as a simple truth that need not be argued at all.

It has happened before. When President Harry S Truman said in March 1952 that he would not seek re-election, most Americans could agree on one thing: that his foreign policy had been a catastrophic failure. In Korea his indecision had invited aggression, and then his incompetence had cost the lives of some 54,000 Americans and millions of Korean civilians in just two years of fighting—on both counts more than ten times the number of casualties in Iraq. Right-wingers reviled Truman for having lost China to communism and for his dismissal of the great General Douglas MacArthur, who had wanted to win it back, with nukes if necessary. Liberals despised Truman because he was the failed shopkeeper who had usurped the patrician Franklin Roosevelt's White House—liberals always were the snobs of US politics.

Abroad, Truman was widely hated too. The communist accusation that he had waged "bacteriological warfare" to kill Korean children and destroy Chinese crops was believed by many, and was fully endorsed by a 669-page report issued by a commission chaired by the eminent British biochemist Joseph Needham. Even more people believed that Truman was guilty of having started the cold war by trying to intimidate our brave Soviet ally, or at least that he and Stalin were equally to blame.

How did this same Harry Truman come to be universally viewed as a great president, especially for his foreign policy? It is all a question of time perspectives: the Korean war is half forgotten, while everyone now knows that Truman's strategy of containment was successful and finally ended with the almost peaceful disintegration of the Soviet empire.

For Bush to be recognised as a great president in the Truman mould, the Iraq war too must become half forgotten. The swift removal of the murderous Saddam Hussein was followed by years of expensive violence instead of the instant democracy that had been promised. To confuse the imam-ridden Iraqis with Danes or Norwegians under German occupation, ready to return to democracy as soon as they were liberated, was not a forgivable error: before invading a country, a US president is supposed to know if it is in the middle east or Scandinavia.

Yet the costly Iraq war must also be recognised as a sideshow in the Bush global counteroffensive against Islamist militancy, just as the far more costly Korean war was a sideshow to global cold war containment. For the Bush response to 9/11 was precisely that—a global attack against the ideology of Islamic militancy. While anti-terrorist operations have been successful here and there in a patchy way, and the fate of Afghanistan remains in doubt, the far more important ideological war has ended with a spectacular global victory for President Bush.

Of course, the analogy with Truman is far from perfect: the Soviet Union was a state, not a state of mind. But even so, once Bush's victory is recognised, the errors of Iraq will be forgiven, just as nobody now blames Truman for having sent mixed signals on whether Korea would be defended. Of course, the Bush victory has not yet been recognised, which is very odd indeed because it has all happened in full view.

Until 9/11, Islamic militants, including violent jihadists of every sort, from al Qaeda to purely local outfits, enjoyed much public support—either overt or tacit—across most of the Muslim world. From Morocco to Indonesia, governments appeased militants at home while encouraging them to focus their violent activities abroad. Some, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) funded both militant preachers and armed jihadists. The Saudis financed extremist schools in many countries, including the US and Britain, and had thousands of militant preachers on the payroll in addition to writing cheques for jihadists in the Caucasus, Pakistan and a dozen other places (although not to Osama bin Laden himself, their declared enemy). The UAE rulers who now talk only of their airlines and banks are reliably reported to have handed over sackfuls of cash to Osama in person, meeting him at Kandahar's airfield when flying in to hunt endangered species. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were also the only countries that joined Pakistan in recognising the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. Other Muslim governments, notably Sudan, Syria and Yemen, helped jihadists by giving them passports and safe havens, while others still, including Indonesia, simply turned a blind eye to Islamist indoctrination and jihadist recruitment...

Texto completo en:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10309

2 comentarios:

Tinta Floja dijo...

Porque contra intuitiva? me parece un articulo bastante bien escrito, es mas, el escritor esta mejor informado que yo. Pero quien soy yo para hacer esa afirmación? No conozco a Maricucha, con eso digo bastante.

Es cierto que las medidas económicas de Bush han traído al pueblo gringolandes a sus rodillas, la verdad que ir al mercado y comprar casi nada por mas de 100 dolares es una locura, pero en un país en el que las distancias son enormes y el precio de la gasolina esta por el cielo (4.17 el galón en Costco ayer) pues todo tiene que subir.

El Petroleo estaba hace un año a 75 dolares el barril, esta semana cerro a 125 si no me equivoco y llego a estar a 145 el barril. Los países productores ganan dinero si el barril se vende a 42 dolares el barril, imaginarse a el Gorila de Venezuela forrándose los bolsillos de oro no es difícil.

Muchos apoyaron la guerra en Iraq porque supuestamente nos iba a traer petroleo barato para rato, la cosa no fue así. El costo de dos frentes de batalla (Iraq y Afganistán) es inimaginable, creo que llegaba a los 12 billones de dolares al mes y yo no me puedo ir de vacaciones!

El articulo esta bien escrito, creo que bien informado y es posible que el escritor tenga la razón, no por eso vamos a ver a Bush con mejores ojos.

Saludos.

Eduardo Villanueva dijo...

Muy interesante a pesar de su partisanship. Me recuerda, con un tono muy distinto, un artículo del Atlantic Monthly que planteaba que lo que EEUU tenía que hacer era declarar la guerra contra el terror ganada, y dedicarse a otras cosas.

Creo que el autor sobredimensiona el peso del jihadismo en general, y de al Qaeda en particular, así como su victoria, especialmente considerando el problema en Europa y la situación en Pakistán, que parece siempre estar a punto de explotar. En lo económico, la cuestión del nuevo ciclo de innovación alrededor de la energía parece cierta, pero dependerá mucho de quién se sube al carro y la promueve con agresividad, cosa que los europeos parecen tener más claro que los EEUU. Veremos.