Alright...

I think it's about time it was discussed what President Bush meant, exactly, when he said.

An article for context...

Bush says it is time for action
Was this a fair statement to the international community?

Is it an example of the much-reference "arrogant" policies of the Bush administration?

What exactly did he mean by that remark?

I think the speech by itself could have worked just fine without the additive of inactivity, it sounds like you will be punished or something, and i doubt we could punish someone if we had the power of say the nation of Somalia, so in that tone i do find arrogance. I don’t want to derail this thread, but like everyone knows nations are helping on the war on terror and in Afghanistan, it was Iraq that we could not sell to the world at large.

I see that sentence "either you're with us or against us" as being similar to saying "you're either part of the solution or part of the problem." In the cases of those countries who chose NOT to lift a finger he saw that as essentially being AGAINST any decisive plan to do something about it.

Obviously every country he was referring to KNOWS there is a problem in the world with terrorism. Obviously too, they were content to continue to operate under the status quo of "containment" attempting little else.

No, I don't think it was an arrogant statement. honest and to the point is more like it.

So Caliente 1 has it right with the "either or" scenario.

George W. Bush tends to look at things as more black and white than his predecessor. That doesn't mean reality is anywhere near that neatly defined to most of us.

What about Saudi Arabia? I remember a prince coming over to New York City after 9/11/2001 to express his condolences and give a hefty donation to Mayor Giuliani IF Giuliani would acknowledge some degree of American responsibility for having been attacked. Giuliani turned him down flat.

Did you notice how careful Bush was not lumping the Saudis with the bad guys, even though our government's evidence pointed to the preponderance of the hijackers being from Saudi Arabia?

The Saudis have allowed the U.S. to use their country as a staging area, but many of their people are not happy about it and there have been some terrorist attacks as a result. It would be interesting to know what the majority of Saudis really think about the U.S. presence.

Now Bush has had to backtrack some on his tough rhetoric about France. Since relations have been so fouled up, he sent "the little woman" over to smooth things over. Just what did he think he was going to accomplish? Of course Chirac was not going to say hostile things to Laura Bush (who would?). But I can't see that he was going to warm up toward her husband because she paid France a diplomatic visit.

France will only be our enemy if our leaders continue to malign France. They were not against us. It is possible to be an ally but still disagree on principle.

To me, this was not a bad statement in and of itself, had he had any real sense and morality about how to go get our real enemies, instead of going off an a tangient against Iraq. He basically engineered a "hate France" campaign because they did not support his hair brained scheme of revenge there, but they were busy going after al-quaida cells, just like Germany, and turning over all intelligence they recieved on al-quaida to the US- a true friend, one that doesn't just say "yes" to all the stupid things they might do, yet continues to help with the important parts.

For me, the 'You're either with us or against us' is a demand to America's allies, based on the knowledge that America is going to go beyond the acceptable in an effort to bring about an unspecified goal.

Personally I resent the implication that we, as allies, are being forced by America's attitude to support actions which go against very thing we have believe in for the last sixty years. And I see no redemption in the actions of the Bush administration since the speech was made.

Had I had the authority, I would have publicy refused to bow to any such blatant and disrespectful demand of being with or against 'you'.

To clarify, was the statement "with us or against us" actually in the context of the Iraq invasion? The link seems to refer to Afghanistan, the Taliban and terrorism in general. I can't remember anymore, but seem to recall the statement being about Iraq, but maybe I remember it differently.

If it wasn't about the proposed premptive strike on Iraq, then I'd tend to agree with him - to a certain extent. The september 11th attacks obviously dwarf any other acts of terrorism other nations have experienced. Most nations will suffer terror attacks, albeit on a smaller scale, but I doubt they seek anything beyond foreign sympathy. These nations might not take kindly to being dragged into a war against another terrorist group, one that has no apparent desire to attack them, becaues America says so. In fact I'll put it correctly, becauses Bush threatens them. But it is still important for intelligence sharing, and cooperation if terrorists are believed to be operating within or have retreated to that nation.

On ther other hand, if it was intended to be "with us or against us" when it came to the war on Iraq, then it should be obvious to anyone that this is an unacceptable statement. Even if you were a war supported, it should be realised that a lot of people and nations weren't, and should not be expected to assist an invasion they do not condone. Threatening them into doing so is the first step towards becoming an oppressive regime in itself, in my opinion, and is in fact quite a chilling thought.

I think the statement was originally made with regards to the war on terrorism.

The "either - or" ultimatum was a rhetorical device his speech writer used to make a point about terrorism.

We sometimes get this put on us in personal relationships. It is always a power play, and one that I tend to respond to with "See yah!"

And it is basically the Bush Doctrine in a nutshell. Screw diplomacy; bomb the crap out of someone.

So now it can be extended. Either you are with us or against us; please send money and troops.

In a personal relationship, that'd be it for me.

But nations can't just walk off the planet in a huff. So here we are.



(can we have a disgusted smiley that looks to the right?)

"You're either with us or against us" can be interpreted in a threatening manner in which if you don't join our side, we'll wipe your country off the map. But i think it was just a last minute ad lib to make him sound like he was serious and to scare countries to join us....a dry threat if i may say.

I think the Bush administration has done a poor job selling the on going struggle to stop al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. This is not a war its an international police action. Its hard to believe that George W Bush could be so weak on international diplomacy when his Dad was so good at it. In the above article Madeleine Albright is critical of the line in the sand drawn by the Bush administration. Its interesting that she says that 'Toppling Saddam's regime was a legitimate and necessary goal...but rarely in American diplomacy has the right goal been pursued so poorly', I have to agree.

Before I add in my perspective (a bit strapped for time at the moment) I'd add as a point of information. This statement had nothing to do with Iraq (or French-Bashing, where did that come from? ) and was made less than a month after the 911 attacks.

I don't think so. I think he is doing fine. half of Al-Queda's leadership is dead and the other half is running away like scared rats. And, as quoted many times, many terrorist attacks have been foiled since 9/11.



It's kinda hard to be diplomatic with a man like Saddam, who's been playing the game of cat and mouse since the end of the Gulf War.

...and Bush's philosophy seems to be pulling in the results
Although many will prefer NOT to attribute these and ANY positive results in the War on Terror with Bush's "no-frills" hardline of PRO-ACTIVE response rather than IN-ACTIVE response in the war on terror...



http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...how?msid=231099

Although this is an interesting debate. The effectiveness of Bush's policy is not up for debate here. Simply what he meant by the famous "with us or against us" statement. Which I will say again had nothing to do with Iraq.

I think what Bush meant was that governments around the world were going to have to wake up and realize that either you are an active participant in the war on terror, or you are an active accomplice. Coming as it did before the invasion of Afhanistan, I think it was specifically targeted at regimes which harbored known terrorists, but that did not participate in the terrorism themselves. So, I think it could be restated "If you knowingly harbor a felon, you are an accomplice to his crimes." I don't see much reason to argue against this stance, as far too many countries had proclaimed themselves 'innocent' while knowingly harboring, and, in fact, protecting, terrorists. Also, in this definition, if you're not one of the countries harboring the terrorists, the statement really doesn't even apply to you.



I agree with the latter, but not with the former. France, IMHO, was against us. This was either in an attempt to thwart American influence, or to garner influence for France, or both. I bring this up because the statement may have significantly impacted that decision.



I don't think there's much room for debate here. One only needs to look back at the furor both here and abroad over the administration's actions to see that it wasn't sold very well. Which, as Albright states, doesn't mean that the actions taken weren't the right thing to do, just that it wasn't effectively 'sold'.

I'd like to comment on that. We French disagree with the US policies over Iraq, but we are not against the American people as such. Look at the perfect cooperation in the war against terrorism, it's a fitting example of good work achieved together.

I agree with SoCal about the interpretation of these comments and disagree with the conclusion.

I do not think the with or against comment was a threat against less active nations, but I do believe it was the height of arrogance in terms of foreign policy.

9-11 changed a lot of nations approach to terrorism. We do not need to lead a crusade to wake the world up from a policy of gathering intelligence and reacting to acts of terror. We used this approach before 9-11 and it seems silly to infer that other nations were being complacent while we shared this general approach.

Also, European nations have had to deal with this terror a long time before we demanded that something be done because of our national tragedy.

Nations out there are quite willing to help in the war against terrorism.

Where this is an arrogant message and where it is the height of what I disagree with in the Bush non-Doctrine. . . (Follow our lead but we will not define terrorism nor try laying out what the new rules of the world are in terms of rogue nations, wmds, or cooperation) is that this statement says basically you are either going to follow our lead or you are not conducting a campaign against terror.

When did the United States get to define foreign policy for the rest of the world? This statement to me is the equivolent of Gov. Arnie now pushing through policies in California and expecting the rest of the country to follow them.

It is bad diplomacy and it is bad policy. We had an opportunity to launch a new era of cooperation and trust between our allies but we used cowboy diplomacy and used language like the phrase being debated in this thread. The responding nations in this language are to either follow or be part of the problem. As sovereign nations they should be able to take part in defining the war on terror. And look at all of the cooperation that came from around the world in attempts to crush Al Qaeda. Pakistan, France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy and many others devoted high national priority to finding terrorists and to cooperating with the United States.

We kept issuing individual statements and tough langauge and then we pushed into Iraq without patching together consensus. Our allies were right about Iraq and we treated them like traitors. We didn't allow for closed room diplomacy on this issue and we have treated iraq like it is our province and future revenues from that country are our right since we conceived the plan to invade/liberate without a broad coalition.


So in conclusion, this phrase is a key symbol to what has gone wrong with American foreign policy as it has put distance between us and our key allies at a time when there was an opportunity to bring nations of the US alliances closer together.

Exactly Eeyore! I agree with what you said, as well as this does he not realize with what he is saying can actually back fire on us when he uses this rhetoric "either you're with us or against us" what would happen if the rest of the world saw us as terrorists by going into Iraq?

GoAmerica



But how do you know this? By its very nature, al qaeda is an unknown entity.

And may I just pont out a small detail?

I don't know if it is significant, but so far the two big al qaeda attacks have followed a pattern; September 11, October 12... If there is a pattern then the next big attack may occur on Novermber 13.

I think this is a key misunderstanding of what Bush meant by the phrase. It wasn't a admonishment to follow US policy on terrorism at all times or risk being labeled a terrorist, but rather a philosophical statement of fact. Any country that does not do what it can to prevent terrorism has no excuse and is in effect aiding terrorists in their slaughter of innocents. Does that mean one always has to agree with Bush or risk attack by the US? Of course not, it would take a presumptions of extreme stupidity to believe that is what Bush meant (some make that presumption, I believe is is clearly unjustified). Rather what was meant was that the intentions of each country should be to fight terrorism.

If that is what he meant, then why would he use such inflammatory language that so easily open to this kind of misinterpretation. Every set speech that Bush presents is carefully poured over to avoid items of confusion, especially when it is related International Relations. Don't you think it's presumptuous to say that everyone is simply misunderstanding him? Especially since he himself has never agreed with YOUR interpretation, and his actions don't either.

1. The statement was not made in an official address, it was actually at a news conference with Jacques Chirac soon after 911.

2. If you assume that the statement would be closely evaluated to avoid misunderstanding, why assume evaluation might not also go into its effect on international relations? Assuming one without the other makes little sense.



Evidence...

Has he begun calling every nation that disagrees with US terrorism policy terrorist accomplices? Of course not...

It seems to me the presumption that the worst possible interpretation of the statement must be what Bush meant is what is questionable.

1. Do you honestly think that statements made at news conferences are not carefully doctored and prepared? Every politician has those sorts of documents at the very least looked-over by their senior staff.

2. Again, you don't understand. When I say "misunderstanding" I say that it would be carefully prepared so that anyone hearing it would know exactly what was meant, not so everyone would agree. The United States has made a determination to completely abandon a Realist approach to International Relations and that speech was just a declaration to the rest of the world to that effect.



I don't need to offer specific evidence that "with us or against us" is official government policy since that term is just a figure of speech. I can however provide evidence of my earlier supposition that Realist IR has been abandoned.

From: The Bush Doctrine and the Poverty of International Relations Theory



On realism...



Considering that the author is a member of the PNAC this observation is key, even though he disagrees with most realist IR sentiments. If you want to know more about Realist International Relations or IR studies let me know, as it is an area of interest.