Could it be that Bush was right?

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 3, 2009

As the unrest in Iran changes form before the eyes and ears of the world, our president’s response seems to be just as amorphous. Obama has failed to demonstrate a resolute and determined response to the crisis. He has taken the risky position of sitting upon an ideological fence, as if he is waiting to see who is going to come out ahead before he makes a decision. However, in the course of dealing with conflicting philosophies, the luxury of waiting for the winds of change to give direction to core values does not belong to those who have placed themselves in positions of power.

Obama’s campaign promises to meet and talk with rogue leaders, such as Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il, with “no preconditions” was rightly blasted as naïve by Hilary Clinton and others. After the initial results of the June 12 election came in, and before the depth of outrage came out, Obama hailed the need to recognize Iran’s sovereignty in an attempt to keep diplomatic corridors free from obstacles. However, his current public response has morphed to one of being “appalled and outraged” by the violent response of the Iranian government toward the demonstrators who are demanding a valid recount of the votes.

The images that come out of Iran’s streets and public squares via cell phones and YouTube videos demand a more definite and firm voice of support for the cause of freedom and liberty. Obama has so far refused to use those two words, apparently because he is afraid of showing any agreement or confederacy with George Bush. Instead he only speaks of “justice” – a word that bears different meanings to different people. In fact, he has sought, in every way, to purge any Bush-ism from his vocabulary, although he sees no problem with continuing Bush’s most controversial policies.

That is why the response from Ahmadinejad, reported by Reuters on June 25, comparing Obama to Bush, served up the worst slap Obama could have ever received from another leader. He accused Obama of making a mistake by voicing outrage and claimed Obama “fell into a trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.” He went on to say that Obama should avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs, as if the act of shooting citizens in the streets was tantamount to a civil domestic dispute between loving family members.

So, how does Obama get out of this quandary?

If the revolt continues to grow via the new channels of communication such as Twitter, YouTube and cell phones, and results in the overthrowing of the current regime, Obama will be exposed as being behind the political curve. He will also be seen as the one world leader who was too timid to offer his support to a valiant group of people seeking freedom of expression.

If, on the other hand, the government is successful in crushing this demonstration of civilian unrest through the shed blood and dead bodies of unarmed citizens, Obama will be seen as either implicitly or explicitly condoning the action, should he ever shake the blood-stained hand of the perpetrator in signing any future agreements.

The solution, I believe, is similar to those I mentioned in my last column regarding the North Korean challenge. It involves learning from history and applying tactics that have proved successful in the past. The response of President Reagan during the revolution in Poland that eventually led to the flame of liberty spreading to other nations behind the Iron Curtain was to offer moral and philosophical support to the people of Poland while refraining from overt or covert endorsement of any one leader.

Obama has rightly concluded that we should not endorse Mousavi or Ahmadinejad. History has shown that the policy of choosing a particular leader over another is never a good idea. However, history has shown that support for the universal thirst for freedom can be an effective weapon against tyranny. Obama can make his plea directly to the people by using the tools afforded to him by the Internet’s long reach into individual homes and personal computers.

Obama has a chance to change the world like Reagan and Bush changed the world before him. He needs to extol the virtues of freedom and America’s history of fighting to promote it, as Reagan did, instead of apologizing for America’s role in the evils of the world. He needs to recognize that Bush’s policy of lighting a candle of liberty in a darkened area of the world will shed its light upon the neighboring nations. We are now witnessing the truth of Bush’s words.

As the people in Iran look to their neighbors in Iraq, who are now beginning to reap the fruits of our troops’ labors in gaining them free elections and personal liberties, it is going to be increasingly difficult for their leaders to brand the U.S. as the great Satan.

Instead of trying to be the Anti-Bush candidate, Obama needs to be mature enough to admit that, for all his faults, Bush did get some things right.