Rudy's World

In focusing the central themes of his campaign on security and fear of terrorism, Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor and now leading Republican presidential candidate, appears to have taken a page out of Karl Rove's 2004 playbook. His views on these matters are laid out in fifty-three terse paragraphs in the September/October issue of the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Affairs, in an article called "Toward a Realistic Peace."

Purporting to be Giuliani's foreign policy manifesto, "Toward a Realistic Peace" is, in fact, nothing more than unreconstructed neo-conservatism. In it, Giuliani presents the world painted in stark scenes of black and white, of good and evil engaged in mortal combat. This is Rudy's world, a "dangerous place" where "we cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face." It is a world where conflict is inevitable and necessary, and where the fight must be taken to the enemy, and where we must be unrelenting and decisive.

Like his neo-conservative mentors, Giuliani hyper-inflates the threat of terrorism into an existential menace, conflating all evil-doers (from whatever background) into a collective group. "They," of course, are "Islamic fascists;" and they pose, in Giuliani's world, a threat not-unlike that of the Soviet Union in its heyday. It is "they" who are waging what Giuliani terms "The Terrorists War on Us." And since "they" seek to destroy us, we must destroy "them" first.

Giuliani believes that "our enemies are emboldened by signs of weakness" and so we cannot afford to show weakness. The reason we were attacked in the first place, Giuliani says, is because terrorists were "encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions" we have taken in the past. What this means, of course, is that we must be prepared for a "long war...in which we must not rest until the global terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated."

How will this be done? First and foremost, by prevailing in Iraq and Afghanistan, since these are the terrorists' beachhead. But victory here will in no way be the end of the matter.

According to Giuliani, the post-Cold War peace dividend was a mistake, and so he calls for a massive and rapid build-up of U.S. military capacity. Resurrecting an idea from the Reagan era, he calls for the building of a national missile defense system and, in a strange flight of fancy, promotes "constellations of satellites that can watch arms factories everywhere around the globe, above and below ground" as central part of our arsenal.

In Giuliani's view, diplomacy itself must be refashioned. Traditional diplomacy recognizes a world of competing and divergent systems, and understands the need to create an architecture of relationships to communicate across the divide and resolve problems. But in Rudy's world, diplomacy must change: instead of talking with friends and to adversaries, Giuliani diplomacy becomes talking at them. In a rather stunning paragraph, he says, "the time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world." This, he calculates, will be enough because "too many people denounce our country, and/or our policies, simply because they are confident they will not hear any serious refutation. ...The era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end." And so, in Rudy's world, diplomacy becomes forceful arguments backed by the threat of force.

Doug Bandow, a conservative analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, summarizes Giuliani's foreign policy thusly:

"A bigger army, navy and air force, prosecuting the war in Iraq until liberal democracy emerges. Bombing Iran. Invading more countries to defenestrate bad regimes and suppress disorder. Attacking more countries to kill the additional terrorists created by his more frequent interventions. Confronting China and Russia. ...George W. Bush already has done his best to bankrupt the nation and anger the world. Giuliani would go double or nothing."

All of this may be, as one writer speculates, merely a clever campaign tactic employed to distract conservative Republican voters from the mayor's many personal problems or to divert attention away from the fact that he is out of touch with the majority of Republican primary voters on key social issues. Even so, it's dangerous.

In "Toward a Realistic Peace," Giuliani displays himself to be out of touch with reality, with no lessons learned from this administration's many failures. There is no recognition of the reality that the Iraq war has weakened the U.S., showing the limits of military might and the how the careless use of force, instead of weakening enemies, actually emboldens them.

Giuliani claims to know more about foreign policy than any of his opponents, but in "Toward a Realistic Peace" he displays a failure to understand the basic requirements of diplomacy - requirements learned too late by the Bush administration, which is only now being forced begrudgingly and half-heartedly to adopt an alternative course.

Giuliani's views are extreme, but are sadly uncontested by his major opponents in the Republican Party, representing the victory of neo-conservatives in shaping the GOP's policy discourse. In today's GOP, there is no place for the "pre-9/11 mindset" of George H.W. Bush, James Baker, or even Richard Nixon. These practitioners of traditional diplomacy built alliances, negotiated treaties, and even talked to their adversaries. All of this is now swept aside, and what we have left is Rudy's world.

How very sad, and how very dangerous.

Comments

[MSB]

Is it still unfair to call opponents who share this vision "morons?"

What is actually funny about this ideology is that rather than make our enemies fear us, it makes it infinitely more likely that THIS country will be mired in a civil war.

If a person wants the East Coast, the West Coast, and some of the Great Lakes region to secede, this would be the way to go about it. After all, it is these regions that will pay for it.

[jules233]

If this is an example of the horrifying mindset of the would-be next president, we can only pray that the majority of the "base"will NOT be distracted by his divergence from them on social issues and his less than admirable "family values". As for me, "Malo Periculosam Libertatum Quam Quietum Servitium" ("I prefer liberty with danger to peace with servititude").

[djarvis]

No doubt, Giuliani's rhetoric is scary. Unfortunately, many neocon right-wingers will probably buy into it. From what I see in this article, it appears that Rudy would be even worse than Bush when it comes to diplomacy.

If Rudy were to get elected and he did everything he says he will, we would no doubt have to reinstate the draft. There would certainly be a lot of angry people if that were to happen. Rudi's own offspring might have to go to war then. But I guess he wouldn't mind that. His kids don't seem to like him much anyway.

[jhNY]

Gee, it almost as if Rudy is a protoFascist who wishes to bomb the whole world if need be into compliance with his fantasies of total control of everything and everybody! Once everybody is dead who doesn't like him, he'll finally be able to get a good night's sleep, except he's so darn vigilant he'll probably stay up anyway.

[Neuromancer13]

I read most of Rudy's article last night before bed. I remarked to my wife "Not that this is really much of a surprise, but Rudy Giuliani is a frothing mad authoritarian militarist."
I see that I'm not the only one to get that impression.

[mommamia526]

O.k. now, is this about Giuliani, or is this an attempt to justify random murder and terrorism? Frankly, I do not like either one. However, it is time that terrorists, of any kind or *ilk* recognize that the world is changing, and that it can not be changed back. We are moving forward and always have. Yes, it is often difficult to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, it is not easy to see Western Europe flooded with Islam and muslims. Not that there is anything against Islam or muslims, i.e. those who just go about their lives. The problem is that they want to change everyone to their worldview and lifestyle. Western Europe has always had the motto: Live and let live. But for Islamic terrorists the motto is live as I say and I do, or I will murder you. In fact, if I do not like your nose, I will murder you. Or, if I do not like your movie I will murder you. That is no way to have a discussion. Now, see, that is a little difficult to accept. And if you are dead you certainly can not live with it. All the world is making space for migrations, and the Middle East should do the same. The world with its diversity is here, and getting crowded, it is expanding into spaces it never was before. Religion and culture is something we are steeped in from birth, no matter what this religion or culture is. If we understand that, and respect that, and change ourselves instead of others, we can all get along. After all, no one is saying to the writer of this article: go back to where you came from or we will drive you into the ocean. Am I right, is he from Lebanon? What is he doing here in the U.S.? He certainly does not look like one of the original inhabitants of the U.S.

[hippynanainblingland]

For starters, your last sentence indicates, perforce, that you are aboriginal, indigenous to these parts of the world, no? Didn't think so...

Then you say that "they" want to change everyone to their worldview and lifestyle..." And we do not? You describe "terrorists" as if they were all foreign, and terrorism as a force directed only at the Western World... The thing is, the Western World has, for centuries on end, terrorized the indigenes of other continents, to the point of usurping the resources of the entire planet, and there's nothing they would like better than for said indigenes to remain powerless to oppose them... and one of the weapons they use is the propaganda describing the insurgent as "terrorists."

That is not to negate that many, if not most of the existing "terrorists" are way out of line, but so are the countries and/or corporations that want a world of serfs/consumers more than anything else, with them on top, of course.

And, BTW, Europe's motto has never been "Live and Let Live." Au contraire, Europeans have been among the most intrusive and brutal with aboriginal peoples around the world, and if you doubt that, then name any country in the Americas that is wholly indigenous.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Here's the difference between a Nixon and a neo con. Both have an active itch to be in charge of the whole planet but Tricky Dick was more like a white collar fraud artist, and the neo cons are just garden variety street thugs (who happen to know more fifty cent words). They want to run things, and they want to steal the right to do it, but all of them are way past stupid if they don't understand that this planet is far too large, and far too complex to be held captive by any occupying force.

So, it has at least been a good thing to have Iraq and Afghanistan juxtaposed in the American consciousness. Most people now know how to differentiate between just killing a bunch of folks over there, and actually doing something to lessen the risk to the planet from organized terror groups.

At least I hope we have learned this lesson because the outcome of the 2008 election depends on exactly that. You gotta love that the Repugs all want to come out swinging away with the old "let's kill our way to peace and prosperity" message. If there is any enlightenment at all in our political universe, this is exactly the wrong message to campaign on in the coming cycle. A “Planetary War Against Worldwide Islamo-fascism” makes for just a wonderful slogan to give the radio talking heads unlimited material to rally “the base”, but it’s not going to resonate with the average person who can see with their own eyes that 99.99% of the human race is too busy trying to make a living to be out there actively planning attacks on “The Homeland”.

Hey Rudy (Mitt, Fred, etc.), bring it on. If that’s your best shot you’ll have a short fiery ride on the wings of fame, and then a long time being relegated to the trash heap of history.