No subject

democracy was a centerpiece of his foreign policy. At the same time,
he sought to develop a more productive relationship with Russia,
seeking Moscow's cooperation on issues such as terrorism, Iran's
nuclear program and expansion of global energy supplies.

And in pursuing both these major goals, Bush relied heavily on
developing what he saw as strong personal relationships with foreign
leaders.

The recent setbacks to the president's approach were all the more
unsettling because Georgia had appeared to be one of the few success
stories in the administration's effort to nurture new democracies
that could advance U.S. interests.

Efforts to create multiethnic, democratic regimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan have run into repeated difficulties. And the American
push for Palestinian elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
ended in victory for the radical group Hamas, complicating an already
formidable task of reaching a Middle East peace accord.

Since the Georgia conflict erupted, Bush has repeatedly cited that
nation's progress toward democracy as he promised American support.
"The people of Georgia have cast their lot with the free world, and
we will not cast them aside," he said.

Faced with a massive deployment of Russian military power, however,
the U.S. response was confined to condemning Moscow's actions,
pushing for humanitarian aid and pressing Georgia to accept a
cease-fire agreement brokered by France that would leave Russian
troops still inside Georgia's two breakaway enclaves.

"What freedom strategy?" asked David L. Phillips, a senior fellow at
the Atlantic Council and author of a report on Georgia. "It is
scorned worldwide. Afghanistan is backsliding. The bar has been set
low in Iraq. Georgia is in ruins."

The damage may not be confined to Georgia, many analysts believe.

The U.S. had intended to renew its push for expanding the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization into Georgia and Ukraine in December.
But with its military action, Russia has signaled its categorical
opposition to further expansion.

And several Western European nations are likely to be reluctant to
expand the alliance, though German Chancellor Angela Merkel said
Sunday during a visit to Georgia that the path to membership was
still open to the former Soviet republic.

"This action is a real challenge to the idea of building a Europe
whole, free and at peace," said Stephen Flanagan of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.

And Moscow's violent intervention in Georgia may put democratic
movements in Ukraine and other nearby countries at risk, in the view
of Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign
Relations.

The Bush administration should not "jeopardize these nascent
democracies by letting them think that they can put themselves in
this kind of situation and survive," Gelb said. "You are not just
putting democracy on the line in Georgia, you are putting all of
these places in that neighborhood on the line."

Although U.S. officials say they repeatedly warned Georgia not to
give Russia an excuse to attack, many observers believe the warm
embrace that the Bush administration gave President Mikheil
Saakashvili gave him a false sense of support and a mistaken view
that his friendship with the U.S. would deter a large-scale Russian
invasion.

James J. Townsend Jr., a former Pentagon official now with the
Atlantic Council, said emerging democracies and democratic movements
often assume the U.S. can or will do more to back them.

But the realities of international affairs mean American cheerleading
may be simply that.

"I have seen it over and over again be misconstrued by nations not
used to dealing with us," Townsend said. "I think they misunderstand
our eagerness and enthusiasm and think we are going to be behind them
for anything.

"That is what happened in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in
1968," he added, referring to Soviet invasions of those two nations
to crush uprisings.

The United States was not wrong to encourage democratic movements in
Georgia and other nations, experts argue. But along the fringes of
the former Soviet Union the task is sensitive, especially since the
Bush administration coupled support for democracy with efforts to
forge new security alliances there.

And rather than focusing on individual leaders, critics say, the
administration should have put more effort into building up a middle
class and bolstering civil institutions, a slower process.

"Every president has to stand for democracy," Gelb said. "But the
notion of force-feeding democracy into societies that have never
practiced it is a mistake. And in most cases we pay some price for
trying to do it."

Bush rejected the evolutionary approach, hoping to create democratic
governments where they had not existed before and relying on
individual leaders who demonstrated charisma and espoused noble
goals.

Many of those leaders have struggled. Former Prime Minister Iyad
Allawi in Iraq and President Mahmoud Abbas in the Palestinian
territories did not marshal enough public support. President Hamid
Karzai in Afghanistan has so far failed to build an effective
government. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf came to power in a
coup, has undercut democracy in his country and is on the brink being
impeached. And Saakashvili badly miscalculated Russia's tolerance.

But perhaps in no case did Bush rely on a warm individual
relationship with a charismatic leader more than with Russia itself.
To a significant extent, Bush built U.S. policy on his individual
rapport with Vladimir Putin, rather than on more traditional and
impersonal diplomacy. Early in his term, Bush famously said that he
got a "sense of his soul" after a meeting with Putin, who after eight
years as Russia's president stepped down this year and became prime
minister.

"I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy," Bush said.

Yet Putin has consolidated power and ruled with an authoritarian
might that has sharply diminished Russian democracy.

"Bush's notion was that his and Putin's personal chemistry would be
enough to manage the relationship and deal with Russia's concerns,"
Flanagan said. "And that proved not to be the case."

Officials from an older school of international relations have long
shied away from making policy decisions based on the personality of
leaders.

"I have never believed that one should make national security policy
on the basis of trust," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said
Thursday when asked whether he trusted Putin. "I think you make
national security policy based on interests and policies."

Gates has advocated engaging with Russia in meaningful strategic
dialogues. But meaningful negotiations with Moscow will be difficult
in the wake of the Georgia conflict, analysts agree.

On Thursday, Gates said Russia's military action had "called into
question the entire premise of that dialogue and has profound
implications for our security relationship going forward," Gates
said.

Still, many experts believe that Washington must try to talk to
Russia on a broad number of issues, including U.S. plans to install a
missile defense system in Europe and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"Russia is more dangerous if it is marginalized," Flanagan said. "Its
potential for mischief and disruption is even greater."

julian.barnes at latimes.com