WILSON AND OBAMA
by Daniel Larison
American Conservative Magazine
4/wilson-and-obama/
March 24 2010
All nations have interests, and some have values, and their respective
interests and values frequently conflict. Some, like Woodrow Wilson
and his followers (Barack Obama comes to mind) see essentially
all conflicts as resolvable through diplomatic means, essentially
advocating humility as a way of international life, especially for
the most powerful, like their own country [bold mine-DL]. Others,
notably Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, see conflict as a more
inherent human quality, to be avoided when possible but accepted
when the costs to core values and interests would be too high [bold
mine-DL]. ~John Bolton
Via Scoblete
Most Republican foreign policy arguments over the last year have
been tedious and wrong, but one thing that has been mildly amusing
is the rediscovery of the perfidy of Woodrow Wilson. After two terms
of possibly the most ridiculously Wilsonian President we have had in
over forty years, we are now treated to a slew of articles outlining
the misguided Wilsonianism of Obama from many of the same people who
advanced or defended the embarrassingly Wilsonian foreign policy of
the previous administration.
Bolton’s formulation is the most ridiculous yet, since he would
have us believe that Woodrow Wilson of all people did not believe
in the necessity of armed conflict! There was scarcely a time during
Wilson’s tenure when he was not ordering the armed forces to invade
or occupy another country or join in a military campaign overseas. By
the end of his Presidency, he had deployed American soldiers to more
foreign countries and entered into more foreign wars than all of his
predecessors combined. It is unlikely that he sent an expeditionary
force to Kamchatka because he believed in the absolute efficacy of
resolving conflict without the use of force.
Naturally, Wilson must have sided with the three largest European
empires of his day and enabled them to impose a harshly punitive
treaty on the defeated powers because he believed in "humility as a
way of international life"! That makes sense. If Wilson had had his
way, American soldiers would have been occupying Constantinople and
Armenia, which were supposed to be made into Mandate territories after
WWI. Turkish opinion was never supposed to enter into it. How’s that
for humility? Of course, the Treaty was not ratified here at home and
Ataturk had different ideas in any case, but no one remotely aware of
Wilson’s record could claim that he saw "all conflicts as resolvable
through diplomatic means."
For that matter, one cannot seriously claim this about Obama, either.
After reviewing his speeches and decisions over the last five years,
it is obvious that it is much more accurate to say that Obama believes
conflict is something "to be avoided when possible but accepted when
the costs to core values and interests would be too high." He said as
much at Oslo. He has said something very much like this in connection
with our own war in Afghanistan. Obama did not seem to think that the
recent Israeli conflicts with Hizbullah and Hamas could be resolved
through diplomatic means. How could he? He doesn’t even accept that
there should be negotiations with Hamas. So Bolton’s criticism along
these lines is simply laughable.
Looking at the aftermath of Wilson’s interventions, we can say
that the promiscuous, frequent recourse to using military force and
military deployments did not contribute to international stability,
but usually had the opposite effect. The reality is that Wilson
practiced the sort of reckless foreign policy that Bush did, and it
did great damage to "international peace and security." It is not
surprising Bolton, the would-be defender of "cold-blooded realism,"
has nothing to say about the record of the previous administration,
which combined hubris, unrealistic goals and the wrecking of U.S.
interests all at the same time.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
