George W. Bush arrived at the White House in January 2001 inexperienced in the arena of foreign policy. Subsequently, a series of blunders continued to prevail throughout his presidency. And the president never indicated that he was curious about American history which could have prepared him -- at least to some extent -- for the issues with which he was to encounter.

Consequently, Bush was virtually unable to make decisions by himself. In fact, when he prepared to “Go-it-alone” against Iraq, his father counseled him at Kennebunkport in the summer of 2002. According to the New York Times and other American publications, Bush never made any foreign policy decisions without first consulting with Karl Rove, his GOP political adviser. Rove analyzed for Bush the electoral impact of an assault on Iraq in terms of both the November 2002 midterm congressional races and the presidential race in 2004. (http://www.haaretzdaily.com, October 29, 2002)

PURSUING A POLICY OF ISOLATIONISM. As the most powerful person in the international community, George W. Bush went on the offensive right out of the gate, acting unilaterally by rejecting groundbreaking treaties or defying the advice, appeals, and positions of key allies. Indeed, the cowboy president had a way of letting his rhetoric get out of control, when he first pushed his way through the swinging doors into the global saloon.

Bush's inexperience in global affairs was confirmed by a succession of ideology-driven blunders and amateurish fumbles made by his administration that damaged America's interests and image around the globe. The amateurish president tried to rush the anti-missile defense system when there was no need for haste. He tactlessly rejected of the Kyoto environment accords. And he boycotted the United Nations World Conference Against Racism.

The American president was an isolationist in the international arena on anything that would take money or alter one's life style. He acted arrogantly and unilaterally in opposing several international treaties that were supported by most world powers.

1. Bush arrived at the White House totally inexperienced in the arena of foreign policy and tried to learn while on-the-job. Throughout Campaign 2000, Bush promised a “humble foreign policy.” Instead, he chose to take a hard line approach on the world stage. The cowboy president had a way of letting his rhetoric get out of control, when he first pushed his way through the swinging doors into the global saloon.

2. He opposed the Kyoto Protocol which required world powers to reduce gas emissions. If ratified by the United States -- which was a contributor of 36 percent of all the Earth’s emissions -- corporate profits would have diminished.

3. Bush unilaterally abrogated the SALT I in June 2002 -- after Russia refused to comply -- in order to build his pet National Missile Defense (NMD) anti-missile system. He refused to listen to his global counterparts -- friends and foes -- who maintained that the termination of the treaty would lead to another arms race.

At least four NMD tests ended in failure. The initial tests were conducted at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. In a test on February 16, 2002, two Patriot missiles failed to hit their targets. (Washington Post, February 17, 2002) Advanced tests occurred over the Pacific Ocean. On several occasions, anti-missile “killer” vehicles, launched from the Kwajalein Islands, failed to destroy incoming mock warheads launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California 4,800 miles away. Prototype radar was unable to tell ground controllers whether a kill vehicle had destroyed its target. (Washington Post, December 4, 2001)

Each test cost over $100 million. In June 2002, Bush announced that future NMD test would be classified, perhaps because of numerous failures.

4. In July 2001, Bush announced plans to deploy weapons in space. They included a renewal of preparations to place thousands of missile interceptors in space, a program dubbed “Brilliant Pebbles” by the George Herbert Bush administration. In addition, “Brilliant Eyes” was revived at a cost of $420 million. The system consisted of a series of low-flying satellites with a greater capacity to track warheads than current satellites. Bush considered the development of chemical laser weapons which the Pentagon hoped to test by 2008 at a cost of between $3 billion and $4 billion. Bush finally considered development of Anti-Satellite weapons (ASATs) capable of destroying the space assets of governments targeted by the United States. (World Socialist Web Site, July 25, 2001)

5. He opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The treaty had been sent to the Senate in the Clinton administration. Consequently, Bush could not withdraw it and allowed it die in the Senate which did not have the votes to pass it. In the mean time, he assembled a task force to study the feasibility of renewed tests in the Nevada desert.

6. Bush stood alone in his opposition to a United Nations plan to ban small arms’ weapons, preventing them to be sold across the globe.

7. The 1972 Biological Weapons Treaty was ratified by 143 nations. It prohibited the development, production, and possession of biological weapons. In the 1990s, the United Nations introduced a resolution to strengthen the treaty in regard to germ warfare. However, in the summer of 2001, Bush pulled out of negotiations at the Biological Weapons Convention in Geneva, and the following year announced he would not sign the pact. He claimed that the treaty would not deter countries seeking to develop biological weapons.

In 2001, Bush approved research for the genetic engineering of a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax to assess whether the vaccine would be effective against such bacteria which were first created in Russia. A germ factory was constructed in the Nevada desert to produce genetically altered anthrax deadly germs. (New York Times, September 4, 2001)

8. Bush opposed the international ban on land mines which would have required the United States to remove its mines from the 38th Parallel between the two Koreas.

9. Three weeks before leaving office, President Clinton authorized the United States to sign a treaty creating the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Apparently fearful that overseas Americans would be prosecuted for war crimes, Bush took the United States out of the pact that was supported by over 100 world nations.

10. Bush also opposed the International War Tribunals for the same reason. He contended that the tribunals spent millions of dollars needlessly, that they were poorly supervised; and that they were abused by lawyers and defendants for their own enrichment. (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2002)

11. Bush announced on July 26 that he would not send delegates to the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, unless conference organizers removed two issues from the agenda: a discussion of Zionism as a form of racism, and the question of reparations for slavery and colonialism. After sending a low-level delegation, Bush instructed the team walked out two days into the session.

12. Bush supported the Missile Technology Control Regime, which consisted of 29 nations with a common goal to prevent the export of technologies for delivering nuclear warheads and weapons.

13. Bush supported the Australia Group, an informal group of 33 countries, which opposed the export of bacteria and chemical weapons.

14. He supported the Non-proliferation Treaty which condemned the spread of nuclear weapons to countries which did not have them.

15. In January 2001, the Senate agreed by a vote of 99-0 to pay the $582 million the United States owed in back dues. When Bush took office weeks later, House Republicans allowed the bill to die. (New York Times, August 27, 2001)

Europeans held a shoddy opinion of Bush. According to a Pew Research poll, more than 70 percent of people surveyed in four major Western European countries -- Britain, France, Germany, and Italy -- believed that he was pursuing a unilateralist foreign policy that based decisions solely on United States interests. They believed that he ignored the wishes of the rest of the world.

This European view mirrored that of Democratic Party leaders who accused the Bush administration of pursuing a go-it-alone foreign policy that undermines key alliances. Although the poll results were not particularly surprising in light of the criticism Bush received from European newspapers and politicians, the numbers showed just how little trust that Bush enjoyed.

When asked whether Bush made decisions based entirely on United States interests or took Europe into account, the percentages answering the former versus the latter were: France, 85-8; Germany, 73-18; Italy, 74-15; and Britain, 79-14. The numbers were almost as striking when respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved of Bush's foreign policy, without reference to any specific issue. Approval ranged from 16 percent in France to 29 percent in Italy. Disapproval ranged from 65 percent in Germany to 46 percent in Italy.

About 75 percent of respondents in France, Germany and Britain said that Bush understood Europe less than most of his predecessors did. In Italy, 53 percent held that view. On specific issues, almost nine out of 10 respondents in each of the countries disapproved of Bush's decision to pull out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement to combat global warming. And majorities ranging from 65 percent in Italy to 83 percent in Germany opposed Bush's proposal to develop a missile defense system if, as expected, it required scrapping SALT I.

However, Bush's decision to keep American troops on peacekeeping duty in Kosovo enjoyed support across the board, as did his free-trade policies. Despite their doubts about Bush and his policies, a solid majority of the Europeans said the United States and Europe continued to be close and effective allies. In each country, fewer than a quarter of the respondents said differences between the United States and Europe had widened in recent years.

But many Europeans surveyed showed little confidence in Bush's overall ability. In Britain, 30 percent of respondents expressed either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in Bush, compared with 57 percent who indicated little or no confidence. In Italy, it was 33 percent to 59 percent; in France, 20 percent to 75 percent. Only in Germany did a majority -- 51 percent to 46 percent -- expressed confidence in Bush. On the confidence question, Bush fared only slightly better than Russian President Putin, who commanded the confidence of 26 percent in Britain, 23 percent in Italy, 14 percent in France, and 41 percent in Germany. (New York Times, August 16, 2001)

CHANGING POLICY ON PREEMPTIVE ATTACKS

On September 20, 2002, Bush broke with tradition and made a bold decision in announcing that American forces could unleash preemptive attacks on potential enemies. It marked a turning point in American foreign policy and military strategy. Bush’s decision was a dramatic change in the decades-old strategy of deterrence and containment. (Washington Post, September 22, 2002)

In this major policy shift, the president created the risk that American adversaries and particularly rogue states would be more likely to carry out terrorist attacks on United States targets. Furthermore, it set the stage for American allies to follow suit and to launch preemptive attacks against any adversaries. Just as Russia, India, and Israel cited the 2001 American-led assault on Afghanistan to justify aggressive measures against opponents they labeled terrorists, a preemptive attack by the United States on another country could prompt other governments to bypass the United Nations and launch a unilateral strike against a foe.

Such preemptive military action would require the Bush administration to draw early conclusions about a rival nation’s capabilities and intent, placing a premium on accurate intelligence and judgment. It would necessitate a clear public case to avoid increasing the perception that the United States played by its own rules in foreign affairs. Furthermore, the military would have to strike with precision, as the danger of retaliation would be great.

BUSH’S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS

In his second Inauguration speech in January 2005, Bush promised that tyrannical governments around the globe would not be tolerated. He claimed he would promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide.

Nothing could have been more hypocritical. The Bush administration had increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan. These regimes were ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers.

Bush proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin’s dismantling of democratic institutions. Bush was eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, so he remained silent on human rights violations in Beijing.

While Bush touted freedom and democracy in his Inaugural address, there was no evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 was motivated primarily by a hatred of freedom. The attack on America was motivated by religious and cultural fanaticism.

While it might be true that all terrorists could be classified as tyrants, it would not be true to suggest that all tyrants would be terrorists. The Bush administration should know this. Since World War II, the United States government supported a succession of tyrannical states with murderous records of oppression against their own people, none of which were terrorist states. Some included Argentina and Brazil which were subjected to military rule; Augusto Pinoche’s Chile; and South Africa under apartheid.

While the goal of promoting democracy would be considered admirable, no concrete proof exists that free states would be less likely to breed terrorists. Transitional democratic states, like Russia, were more violent than the authoritarian ones that they replaced.