The National Revew Online has a column discussing Bush's recent speech at the National Defense University. As the NRO says this is a speech about the evils of stability where what is stabilizied is injustice and oppression. The money quote is:
By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy. It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors. It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies. And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East.
For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. (Applause.) Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy. (Applause.)
America is pursuing our forward strategy for freedom in the broader Middle East in many ways. Voices in that region are increasingly demanding reform and democratic change. So we are working with courageous leaders like President Karzai of Afghanistan, who is ushering in a new era of freedom for the Afghan people. We're taking aside reformers, and we're standing for human rights and political freedom, often at great personal risk. We're encouraging economic opportunity and the rule of law and government reform and the expansion of liberty throughout the region.
It is this clarity of purpose that is what I like about Bush, along with his willingness to turn words into deeds. When I look at the leaders of the UN or the EU - for example - I see a lot of talk but very little action. Although not about global affairs the EU's "Lisbon Agreement" is a classic example, everyone gets together to have a big discussion about how to increase EU growth, technical leadership etc. and promises some wonderful goal in 10 years. However despite all the PR and spin, no one actually goes and implements any policies likely to induce the required growth and technical leadership. The UN's inaction in much of Africa is the same - lots of pious words in meetngs in comfortable hotels and no concrete actions on the ground.
Of course the Anti-war morons are worse still - these are the sorts of people who excuse every tyrant with "at least he made the trains run on time" or "he kept the crime rate down". Stability is not always good, short term pain and instability can lead to a far better long term - I think back to the Romanians I met in 1990 for example. I note that very few of these people seem to have ever visited a dictatorship, or if they have all they have seen are the touristy bits. Anyone who honestly claims to care about human rights should be against all forms of despotic rule and seeking their overthrow. What I think these people most hate about Bush is the way that he shows them up for being the apologists they are. On that note I think NormGeras' series of articles about them is a must read (Norm is a marxist professor in case you didn't know but one highly unlikely to agree with Ward Churchill).
The only valid argument I can think about with regard to Bush is that he is picking the worng countries. Now I disagree with that but I think it is plausuble to suggest that Bush ought to be concentrating on Africa or perhaps lancing the boil in Saudi Arabia or North Korea. It is also reasonable to say that Bush should be less tolerant of abuses by "allies" such as the Central Asia Republics, although of course that is where one sentence from the Air Force Academy speech kicks in - "In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region." Bush is saying that he's going after the declared enemies first and those that assist have a grace period to get their act together. History implies that most of these sort of allies will fail to take this opportunity although the events in Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan etc. show that reform may occur in other places too. Certainly, Bush gives far less support to tyrannical allies than he does to democratic ones.