The inauguration speech

CAPTION OF THIS PHOTO: "Moved to Tears Casey Owens, a wounded Marine, salutes as his mother Janna Owens cries during the inaugural speech by President Bush."

I have not completely sorted out my thoughts on Bush's inauguration speech. The underlying idea I agree with: the spread of democracy is not only "right" in an altruistic sense, but it is the best way to protect the national security of this country. However, in our imperfect world, we are going to have to do business and even be allies with governments that I personally find loathsome. Balancing realpolitik with idealism is difficult, but necessary.

Bill Kristol strikes the balance as follows (although to really appreciate his points, you need to click and read the whole piece):

Bush's Second Inaugural moves American foreign policy beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny. It grounds Bush's foreign policy--American foreign policy--in American history and American principles. If actions follow words and success greets his efforts, then President Bush will have ushered in a new era in American foreign policy. . .

Expansive does not mean reckless. Bush avoids John Kennedy's impressive but overly grand, "pay any price, bear any burden" formulation. Bush states that military force will of course be used to "protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats," and that "we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." But he explains that the task of ending tyranny around the world is not "primarily the task of arms." The goal of ending tyranny will be pursued through many avenues, and is the "work of generations."

At this point, my read of the speech is similar to Kristol's. I seriously doubt, absent a new attack in the US., that there will be any new wars initiated by the U.S. in the next four years. Rather, I think that Bush wants this idea -- i.e., that increased U.S. national security is dependent upon decreased tyranny around the world -- to be his historical legacy. He was not telegraphing foreign policy tactics for the next 4 years as much as attempting to shift foreign policy strategy for the next generation.

(For substantively related post at Centerfield and comments posted there, click here.)