Ideology v. Philosophy

Robert Fisk’s article Civil War in Lebanon published in The Independent (Nov. 22, 2006) is a clear and concise understanding of the dismal state of affairs in Lebanon. After the assassination of Pierre Gemayel and the subsequent world response to this tragedy, he poses a very interesting question:

And why did America's UN ambassador, John Bolton, weep crocodile tears for Lebanon's democracy - which he cared so little about when Israel smashed into Lebanon this summer - without mentioning Syria?

This question strikes at the heart of international perceptions over US foreign policy. Bush, as Morton Abramowitz explains, is ‘neutered’ by his ‘blunders in foreign policy’. Thus, making Bush a lame duck diplomat as well as a lame duck domestic figure. This is also clearly seen in Bush’s decision not to stay over night in Indonesia and holding talks with Al-Maliki in Jordan instead of Iraq. As a result, Bolton, whether he realizes it or not, has become the face of foreign policy in the international square. Bush is seen as either a cowboy or has lost his window of opportunity to engage with other countries. Thus, the actions of Bolton are more relevant now than ever before. Consequently, Fisk’s question is both timely and critical for international perception. Bolton must drop the ideology, which drives the administration, and convert to a more philosophical approach. The difference being that ideology knows all the answers - pre and post facts - while philosophy is searching for the right answer – contingent on facts and logic. Hard times and deviant actions by nations call for calm logic not provincial ideology. Bolton needs to step back from the fire and analyze the facts on the ground and first ask, “Who benefits”? Who benefits from Gemayel’s assassination? Who benefits from the turmoil in Lebanon? Who benefits from a strong Lebanese democracy? Who benefits from the destruction of the nascent democracy in Lebanon? These questions do not have built in answers and need a philosophical approach. An approach built on logic which when honed will create a viable and actionable form of foreign policy, instead of a reactionary system of comments and ‘we regret the actions of …” briefings.