End Of 'Cowboy Diplomacy'?

That's the much-hyped big news from Time magazine.

Highlights...

All the good feeling at the White House on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that he finds himself in a world of hurt. A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, a 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...

There's relief for Bush. January 2009. That's when he cuts and runs.

Despite appearances, the White House insists that Bush's goals have not changed. "The President has always stressed that different circumstances warrant different responses," says White House counselor Dan Bartlett. "The impression that the doctrine of pre-emption was the only guiding foreign policy light is not true. Iraq was a unique circumstance in history, and the sense of urgency on certain decisions in the early part of the first term was reflective of a nation that had to take decisive action after being attacked."

Sorry Dan, but preemptive war and unliteral action wasn't part of some broader fantasy policy, it was the whole policy. These people are hoping most Americans don't remember the days of "with us or against us", but they'd better work harder if they want to whitewash such recent history.

More-

"We put three countries on notice--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--and we attacked one of them pre-emptively," says retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, who commanded the U.S. Central Command from 1991 to '94. "Now we find that was a put-up job. Meanwhile, North Korea and Iran have chosen different routes than what we wanted them to take

A key fact... Bush's policies haven't just failed; they backfired on him completely.

Among ordinary Muslims, outrage at the bloodshed in Iraq and the excesses of the Administration's campaign against al-Qaeda--in particular, reported abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay prisons--has strengthened the appeal of Islamists opposed to the West. As a result, elections are producing governments more hospitable to extremism, not less. Exhibit A was the election of Hamas, a group the U.S. and Europe classify as a terrorist organization, to run the Palestinian Authority. In response to Hamas' victory, the U.S. has led an international ban on aid to the democratically elected Palestinian government.

Related to the above point of backfiring (I gave my thoughts on the Hamas victory in January).

And another point related to all of that-

For most outside the U.S., the threat of suicide bombings is a less pressing concern than issues like health care, education, job security and the environment. The longer the U.S. bases its foreign policy around the single-minded pursuit of Islamic terrorists, the less influence it is likely to have.

Bingo. And while his cult-like followers still can't see it, Bush is starting to figure that out.

Finally-

At the same time, there is a danger that Bush's belated embrace of conventional diplomacy will turn out to be a cover for disengagement, at a time when U.S. leadership is still required to fend off civil war in Iraq and deter the ambitions of Iran and North Korea--to say nothing of al-Qaeda. We are witnessing an overhaul of the old Bush Doctrine, but the question is, Can the U.S. find a new one to take its place?

I'll come back to this last part shortly.

There seems to be two key points here...

First, that this shift is not due to a conscious choice or the influence of moderates like Ms. Rice, but rather the inevitable result of their policies imploding all around them. Had things not gone as bad in Iraq, many preemptive wars would have followed (with Iran first on the list for the Rummy 'shock and awe' treatment). But their ideas and policies have failed and they're left to begrudgingly accept diplomacy and multilateralism while our resources regroup and recover. Or, as DK at Talking Points Memo notes, "The fact is Bush has boxed himself in, frittering away lives and treasure, and leaving himself with few options. He deserves no more credit for a policy shift than the man serving a life sentence who declares that he will henceforth be law-abiding."

The second point, related to that last section I highlighted from the Time piece, is that there is no discernable new policy in place following this implosion of the 'cowboy diplomacy'. Kevin Drum aptly noted last week that "the Bush administration literally seems to have no foreign policy at all anymore. They have no serious plan for Iraq, no plan for Iran, no plan for North Korea, no plan for democracy promotion, no plan for anything." I gave my thoughts on that last Thursday.

We'll see what really comes of this shift. It is a welcome one, of course.

[PS- Ol' John Podhoretz doesn't like this, no sir. As amusing as he is predictable.]