German newspaper the Spiegel had the opportunity to talk to former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. He had some interesting things to say. 

When the Spiegel interviewed John Bolton – former US Ambassador to the UN – the German newspaper probably thought that he would defend Bush mostly, while dropping some bombshells about America’s allies and enemies. Although Bolton is always willing to do the latter, he wasn’t quite defending Bush’s foreign policy. Not only did he criticize Bush himself, he also – and strongly – went after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Ambassador, you worked closely with the president and you shared his hawkish views on Iraq. But your new book is fiercely critical of George W. Bush. Why?

Bolton: His foreign policy is in free fall. The president is turning against his own best judgment and instincts under the influence of Secretary (of State Condoleeza) Rice. She is the dominant voice, indeed, almost the only voice on foreign policy in this administration.

SPIEGEL: The popular reading of her looks a bit different. She is presumed to be weak and not particularly efficient.

Bolton: No. Rice is channeling the views of the liberal career bureaucrats in the State Department. The president is focusing all his attention on Iraq and, by doing so, has allowed the secretary to become captured by the State Department. He is not adequately supervising her. It is a mistake.

After that he went on to say that Bush’s new approach to foreign policy compromises the security of the United States. “North Korea is going to get away with keeping its nuclear weapons. I think the (National Intelligence Estimate) sends Iran a signal they can do whatever they want,” he said.

Although one can argue with the above, he was right to quite a large degree when he said the following:

SPIEGEL: What kind of foreign policy will the next president pursue?

Bolton: If you get a President (Hillary) Clinton, you might well find, just as after Vietnam, that there is a retraction from Iraq and of American influence in the world. And in a couple of years the Europeans will be complaining about that too. See how long American troops last in Europe under an administration that thinks it is time for America to come home.

It’s true. European anti-Americans will criticize the US no matter what it does. If the US is actively involved in the region, Europeans complain that America is behaving like the world’s police. If the US withdraws, it’s forsaking its duty.

On the other hand, Bolton seems to forget that there are many European countries and many different Europeans. Being European doesn’t equal being anti-American. In my case, for instance, I’ve criticized the US under Bush, not because I’m anti-American (I’m pro-America) but because I believe that Bush’s foreign policy was in many ways arrogant and counterproductive.

The question is now how will American conservatives – and media outlets – respond to Bolton’s words? His criticism of Bush and especially Rice isn’t exactly mild, to say the least. Can this be ignored by American conservatives, the White House and American media? And if not, how can they respond?

What we essentially see here is a clash between Republicans who are ‘realists’ and a bit internationally oriented on the one hand, and Republicans who are ideologues and nationalist hawks (and / or neoconservative) on the other. These two groups joined forces for a while in Bush 43’s administration, but they’re breaking with each other at this point in time. They’ll battle with each other, once again, for influence and power in the couple of months; we’ll see what the result of this internal fight will be.