Monday, January 12, 2009 - 9:13 PM
As the presidency of George W. Bush staggers to a long-awaited and much-needed end, it is high time for me to 'fess up about the worst forecast of my scholarly career. Head bowed, I quote from the March/April 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs ("Two Cheers for Clinton’s Foreign Policy"). My closing lines:
Pundits may carp and Republicans may complain, but the American people judge [Bill Clinton's] stewardship of foreign policy to be 'outstanding,' according to polls conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. That is why his successor is likely to follow in his footsteps, no matter what is promised between now and January 2001, and no matter which party wins" (emphasis added).
To say I was wrong is something of an understatement. I could offer excuses -- "Uh, 9/11 changed everything! "Er, Bush pretended to be a realist!" "But he told us his foreign policy would be 'humble!'" -- but the cold fact remains that I just plain blew it. I knew it wasn't going to be good, but I didn't realize just how bad it could get. How bad was it? See here.
Readers who wish to confess their own failed forecasts are welcome to do so. Bonus points for anyone who uses their real name.
Baby Bush's FP has been dictated by Papa Bush's military intervention in the Middle East. I didn't expect that the USA will commit such an error, especially after Lebanon desaster, I mean realistically. Apparently I didn't know that Americans are still living in American Dream World (ADW). The rest of the FPing was just a struggle out of the mess and Baby Bush made it massier on the footsteps of his Papa. At the moment I see no way out for the USA from this mess, unless they re-write their Constitution which I don't expect that will happen in near future, perhaps after when the mess created start turning into black-holes. The USA should take a lot of lessons from the Soviet disintegration and consciously prepare ground for their disintegration via continous transitional modifications of their archaic constitution.
So, Stephen! be happy! my mistake compared to yours was bigger;-> But I like your style;-))
Grand Sen~or
I once said that the XFL would takeover the NFL. All we ever got out of the XFL was HE HATE ME...
walt.
you've got to be joking about people using their real names on this blog.
you are a bit of a lightning rod pal.
your prediction isn't all that bad actually.
you didn't forecast the neo-conservative coup. no one did. not even the most paranoid left-winger.
Dear Walt,
There is NO Israel lobby, just read this article and it will convince you this fact.
Ehud Olmert: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote
Also:
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
Stephen,
I think your linked article about Bush's 'blunders' and 'disasters' was far too harsh and featured below average analysis. Bush made some major mistakes and his stubborn ideological driven policy moves were largely negative, but there was more to his presidency. The US/China,US/India relationships are on firm footing and the media has overplayed the 'unilateral' word as US/EU relations and cooperation are actually at all time highs right now. I now realists won't like this, but Bush's meetings with political dissidents from many oppressive societies has given a voice to those whose ideals match our own (http://greatpowerpolitics.com/). The Iraq war was mostly a strategic blunder, but there is much to say that a world without Saddam Hussein around is a better one. Africom was also put into place under Bush's watch.
My biggest blunder last year: Trading away Manny Ramirez in my fantasy baseball league.
As an undergraduate at the U of C in the late 80's, I failed to forecast how big of an arrogant ass Professor Walt would turn out to be. "The worst forecast of your scholarly career"?! C'mon Steve. Take that kind of unserious crap over to the Huffington Post. I'm happy for you that the "long awaited and much needed" end of the Bush Presidency is at hand; do you think you could just tone down the snarky attitude a little bit please? Why not link to a couple of articles or books that take a contrary view? I'm going to go relax now and re-read Walter Russell Mead's review of the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.
Real names on the Net doesn't mean much unless you met the person or are going to meet. You better look at the content of the messages to identify the character, then if you don't like his/her name you could give him/her a name of your choice which you think reflects his/her character through his/her writings. On the Net people may disguise their real names but noth their real characters even if they choose to play different roles. So, "Stephen M. Walt" doesn't meant to me moch other than what you have posted on the Net. I am not interested your out of the Net activities which I may have limited access. What I am interested is how do you perform in certain situations on the Net and what is your _net_ impact. You might get persecuted even on the Net but usually it happens long after your words reached their targets and keep lingering for new targets in the language. At that stage even if you are asleep your words keep doing their job in the welcoming boosom of the language keep people waking up. This is because language takes care of herself, so be very careful what you are posting on the Net if you don't want to be discarded by the language as idling, that would be a real punishment and waste of time for you. Write what you have to write on the Net, nothing less, nothing more - and if you keep silent it is even better;->
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" L.Wittgenstein
I met George W. Bush a few times while he was at HBS and made the forecast that he would be more entertaining as president than Al Gore. I was thinking of a light comedy, but we seem to have gotten a Texas chainsaw massacre instead. In some sense, my wish was granted.
Professor Walt has quite reasonably told me that he is not going to learn Yiddish at this late date, but foreign policy analysts make serious mistakes today
I have put together my blog for Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel to help non-specialists with Jewish history. In addition, at the end of my second comment on More Analogies, I discuss my hypothesis about the true nature of the Israel Lobby and provide some hyperlinks. I believe my approach can help historians, political scientists and policy analysts understand the effects of Zionism in the ME, the USA and throughout the world.
In general we need to think of the problem of Zionism in a less compartmentalized fashion as I try in In Re: Partition Still Casts Shadow On India-Pakistan Ties.
As a mater of fact THREE real CHEERS for IKE's Foriegn Policy
34th US President IKE suspended AID TO ISRAEL
“Ike” = Dwight David Eisenhower American general & the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961). As far as WAR & PEACE issues; IKE had the richest experience of all US presidents!
In WWII he was the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (1943-1945) he launched the invasion of Normandy (June 6, 1944) and oversaw the final defeat of Germany (1945).
Ike cared about the STRATEGIC WELL BEING of Israel because HE was aware that the creation of Israel was the ultimate answer to European anti-Anti-Semitism.
On October 31, 1956 Ike’s presidency was marked by SUSPENSION OF US AID to ISRAEL in protest at its invasion of Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
In an emergency session of the United Nations (UN) November 1-2 1956 General Assembly was called to consider the Suez Crisis. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES, ATTACKED the British–French–Israeli ACTION, and the Assembly votes for a cease-fire!
Britain & France complied promptly, but ISRAEL did not; until January 22, 1957 when Israeli forces completed their withdrawal.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(9)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE