Foreign Policy Under Dukakis
- Thread starter Octosteel
- Start date
I recall at the time of the invasion, some magazine polled the opinions of various political figures about what the US response should be. One of them was Dukakis, and he opened by saying words to the effect of "Well, first of all, I think we need to talk about why it is we've been in bed with this guy for the last decade."
But his next paragraph opened with "Now having said that...", which I assume to mean that, despite his charge of hypocrisy, he supported some sort of action against Iraq. I don't think at that point that the war had started, so I'm not sure what exactly he was endorsing(sanctions, war, both, or...?)
I suspect that, if he had been president during the invasion, he would have responded more or less the way Bush did, but been a bit more reticent about fanning the flames of triumphalism.
But his next paragraph opened with "Now having said that...", which I assume to mean that, despite his charge of hypocrisy, he supported some sort of action against Iraq. I don't think at that point that the war had started, so I'm not sure what exactly he was endorsing(sanctions, war, both, or...?)
I suspect that, if he had been president during the invasion, he would have responded more or less the way Bush did, but been a bit more reticent about fanning the flames of triumphalism.
Tovarich
Banned
Maybe that could've led to a 'Special Relationship' with John Major on a personal level, he being determined to avoid the kind of flag-waving revel Thatcher indulged in over the Falklands.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait early August 1900, once we went the route of public threats and ultimatums, which is great for public consumption but doesn't do a damn thing strategically,
war is almost inevitable
war is almost inevitable
But there was a lot of Democratic opposition to the war, even from Democratic foreign policy wonk Sam Nunn. Wasn't Bush's choice to invade not the expected course of action? I would think Dukakis would just enact sanctions and send condemnations.
Yeah, it's possible that Dukakis' endorsement was only of sanctions, since I think that was all that had been done at the time the interview was published.
His team would likely have been quite similar to Clinton's first-term team. Probably Warren Christopher or Lee Hamilton at State and Madeleine Albright as NSA or as UN Ambassador. (See this old article on potential Dukakis cabinet appointments.)
My guess is the overall thrust would have been similar to Bush, Sr., but it's admittedly not clear whether they'd attack Iraq or try to contain Saddam with sanctions. My guess is that as a new team coming in they'd be a little less sure-footed with the 1989 revolutions and the Soviet collapse, though I think the end results would likely have been similar. If anything they may have been *more* triumphalist about the end of the Cold War than the Bush team was.
My guess is the overall thrust would have been similar to Bush, Sr., but it's admittedly not clear whether they'd attack Iraq or try to contain Saddam with sanctions. My guess is that as a new team coming in they'd be a little less sure-footed with the 1989 revolutions and the Soviet collapse, though I think the end results would likely have been similar. If anything they may have been *more* triumphalist about the end of the Cold War than the Bush team was.
TinyTartar
Banned
Keep in mind that I don't think Bush was getting us into for any ideological reason but because of the basic fact that this threatened the world economy. Dukakis would understand this and also have to act accordingly, even if it made him cringe.
However, we cannot say for sure that Dukakis would have had the same reaction to the USSR falling as Bush. He might have been more involved and happy about the whole thing and decided to throw a lot of money at the new states.
However, we cannot say for sure that Dukakis would have had the same reaction to the USSR falling as Bush. He might have been more involved and happy about the whole thing and decided to throw a lot of money at the new states.
Last edited:
So perhaps early tensions right off the bat with the Russian successor state due to Dukakis's dancing on the USSR's grave?
Bush 41's foreign policy acumen is way overrated, I personally see him as fairly mediocre in that regard, at the end of the day Nixon understood and wrote at the time that Russia and Eastern Europe needed a second Marshal Plan or the Russian Empire would rebuild again.
At the end of the day Bush choose the second worst of all possible options on how to deal with Iraq. Which turned the country into a religiously radicalizing enemy of the United States that we had a protracted low level war with.
Dukakis would have done better I suspect. You never know for certain, but it would be hard to do worse.
At the end of the day Bush choose the second worst of all possible options on how to deal with Iraq. Which turned the country into a religiously radicalizing enemy of the United States that we had a protracted low level war with.
Dukakis would have done better I suspect. You never know for certain, but it would be hard to do worse.
TinyTartar
Banned
Bush 41 generally handled himself competently on the international stage and made sure that American interests were protected and advanced. I think he did a fine job. Had he been reelected, I think there would have been a Palestinian State post Oslo, for one thing. James Baker probably could have hammered out an agreement given his close ties to Israeli and Palestinian leadership.
I do agree with you on his Iraq policy. When he called on Iraqis to rise up, and abandoned them, that was awful, obviously. However, we realize that he was really asking for a coup by a powerful general to put an end to Saddam, not a popular Shiite uprising to be cowed. However, by not helping the Shiite rebels, he made sure that the country slid into religious Sunni radicalism throughout the 90s, and it was this that ultimately led to ISIS.
A lot of good Shiite leadership was massacred in the uprising, leaving the dregs behind who later would become corrupt politicians like Maliki, or terrorists like Muqtada al-Sadr.
Exactly in the case of Iraq, mind you today the chattering class thinks his move was brilliant because of events over the past 12 years, but that is not what would have happened if Saddam fell in 1991.
But, I have to criticize his Russian and Eastern European policy as well. Sure, he avoided triumphalism, but he also avoided asking the nation to take concrete steps to work with Russia and Eastern Europe to rebuild their economies shattered by Communism. We did all the right symbolic moves with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, but not the practical moves.
His foreign policy certainly wasn't bad in most other areas, but on two of the biggest events he nailed the optics, but mangled the execution of the policy and lets just say was too conservative and risk adverse.
Last edited:
TinyTartar
Banned
They got a lot less attention than the others. As much as modern conservatives like to look back on Reagan's foreign policy as his best achievement, it was not popular at the time; many thought that Reagan was like a more ideological version of Nixon (which could not be farther from the truth; Nixon and Reagan's goals differed dramatically), and Iran-Contra was a bad look for everyone involved. Bush, despite being a foreign policy wonk, deliberately chose to make the election on other things; the economy was doing well enough for him to run on that and say "You guys remember Carter? That's what I thought!", as well as on social issues like Willie Horton and crime, which were VERY popular with the Reagan Democrat base.
Dukakis was arguably the first to get the "liberal elitist" treatment in a way that was clearly stated by the mainstream wing of the GOP. Dukakis did little to change this perception of himself.
Depending on your point of view, if Dukakis does not appoint April Glaspie as Bush did as ambassador to Iraq, things may have been different.
TinyTartar
Banned
Glaspie however was not really a political appointment or a nepotistic appointment, as many of these positions unfortunately are these days, but rather someone known to be an expert on the Arab World and not affiliated with politics of either party.
I don't see Dukakis looking elsewhere for an Iraqi ambassador. The post was too important to give to the second son of one of his donors.
Soviet Union: same, if not more so. But the less experience means some things could end up very different. Unlike Bush hopefully he sees the wisdom of Baker's proposal of another Marshall Plan, which considering Baker's mainstream foreign policy outlook, is probably likely.
Tiananmen: would not have vetoed sanctions on China, and probably would've been firmer. This could change the whole game—Bush's condemnation of the August coup was key to its failure, while he sat on his hands during Tiananmen.
Iraq: Bush's push for a ground war caught pretty much everyone by surprise, considering Saddam's closeness with the USA and Kuwait's with the USSR. Assuming events go the same as OTL (which is silly—why does the royal family necessarily escape, and does the invasion still happen with Glaspie?) military intervention is much less likely IMO. Sanctions and probably a move to rapprochement with Iran are more likely.
Tiananmen: would not have vetoed sanctions on China, and probably would've been firmer. This could change the whole game—Bush's condemnation of the August coup was key to its failure, while he sat on his hands during Tiananmen.
Iraq: Bush's push for a ground war caught pretty much everyone by surprise, considering Saddam's closeness with the USA and Kuwait's with the USSR. Assuming events go the same as OTL (which is silly—why does the royal family necessarily escape, and does the invasion still happen with Glaspie?) military intervention is much less likely IMO. Sanctions and probably a move to rapprochement with Iran are more likely.
At what point would they enact this Second Marshall Plan? Once the USSR was completely dissolved and Yeltsin made President? That would mean that the coup still occurs then.
I'm not so sure how much Tienanmen would be changed with US condemnation. Pretty much every nation condemned it yet the hardliners were still in power. It's not like trade with the West was enough that sanctions would put the hardliners out of power. Tienanmen was the hardliner faction securing their power anyway so nothing would have changed that.