PRESIDENT Bush gave Americans, along with the rest of the world, a welcome reminder last week that their hopes for a better world are not misplaced.
Indeed, his ambitions are astonishing, unprecedented – and uplifting.
Here is a leader – a man with courage, clarity of vision, confidence in his own moral rectitude.
Yet the fact that it is so shocking to see someone finally stand up for what is right speaks volumes about the abysmal state of international affairs.
And about the world’s efforts – even Bush’s efforts – to make things better.
Since 9/11, Bush has vowed to eradicate terror. Hence, his war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda.
In his Axis of Evil speech and his new doctrine of pre-emption, Bush promised to confront regimes that threaten world peace and security. Hence, Iraq.
On the eve of war, Bush went further. Faced with diplomatic opposition rooted in parochial interests, he felt compelled (liberated?) to make a moral argument: “In free Iraq,” he told Saddam’s subjects, “there will be no more wars of aggression . . . no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.
“The tyrant will soon be gone,” America’s president said. “The day of your liberation is near.”
With victory, the world is now both safer and freer.
Nor were his ambitions limited to Baghdad. “The United States,” he said last week, “will work to advance liberty and peace in that region . . .”
He reaffirmed his interventionist intentions, painting portraits of tyrants falling and freedom ringing throughout the world: “Everywhere that freedom arrives,” said Bush, “humanity rejoices. And everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.”
Post-9/11, the fear-ridden can join the downtrodden in taking comfort in Bush’s goals.
Such a doctrine – motivated both by security needs and moral imperatives and made possible (even obligatory) by America’s pre-eminence – is indeed revolutionary.
But in the cold light of morning, Bush will have to compromise. He has not – and cannot – write off realpolitik.
Alas.
Yes, the fall of the Soviet Union opened the world to new possibilities. But Bush has no plans to topple every tryant and right every wrong.
A shame, maybe – but best not to even attempt it. Not overnight, anyway.
In a better world, France and Russia would pay a steep price for their obstructionism.
Kofi Annan would be sent packing.
America’s best friend in the Middle East and only democracy there, Israel, would not be asked to sit on the sidelines during an American-led war in her back yard – even as Washington closes its eyes to tyranny and oppression in autocracies like Saudi Arabia.
Colin Powell would not be playing games with Syria’s Bashar Assad. Nor with Riyadh’s royals, Tehran’s mullahs or North Korea’s nutcases.
Yet, were America to attempt to fix the entire world too quickly, it would find itself – as weasely Democrats have put it – “very busy.”
And, inevitably, it would fail.
For starters, there is little hope, at the moment, of getting world support. (Even getting enough backing in America may be hard.) Instead, there’s a very real danger that resentment, jealousy and fear of this country will grow – prompting nations to ally against it.
Last week, Bush made much of America’s ability “to achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians.” But what happens when America needs to confront entire populations that are hostile?
What will he do should militant, anti-U.S. fundamentalists rise to power democratically in Iraq? Or in the new Palestine?
As strong – and good-hearted – as this country may be, the burden to take on too much too quickly would simply be too great. Economically and militarily.
All that said, Bush’s willingness to push the envelope, to make strong stands in the name of security and morality holds great promise for catapulting world dynamics and norms.
He won’t bring utopia tomorrow.
But he is creating what his father called, and others have envisioned for centuries, “a new world order.”
It’s a valiant, welcome start.
E-mail: abrodsky@nypost.com