George W. Bush -- grand strategist

townhall.com ^ | 2/11/04 | Tony Blankley

[kattracks]

The Boston Globe -- the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times -- ran an article last week that Bush critics might wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history.

The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press), which is to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University. The Boston Globe describes Professor Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment.

If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story, because it makes a strong case that George Bush stands in a select category with Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of the only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.

As the Globe article describes, in reporting on the book and an interview with Professor Gaddis, "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."

According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion -- filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security.

FDR's plans for the post WWII period was the second grand strategy, and gained American security by establishing free markets and self determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Professor Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Professor Gaddis observed.

That brings the professor to George W. Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Professor Gaddis has not been a longtime admirer of George Bush. But he is now.

He observes that Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more than a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of President Bush -- the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval -- is implicitly rejected by Professor Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Bush's progress to date, The Boston Globe article quotes Professor Gaddis: "so far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Professor Gaddis wrote that: "(Bush's) grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War ... "

Is President Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as President Franklin Roosevelt, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party chairman and Clinton fundraiser Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor.

©2003 Creators Syndicate

Contact Tony Blankley | Read Blankley's biography

[kellynla]

Another great article. Thanks for posting. What I like to refer to as "taking out the trash." Every forty or fifty years we have to "take out the trash." In the forties it was Hitler and we should have taken out Stalin. And today its Saddam Hussein, OBL, Gadhafi(who cried "uncle" rather than be "taken out") and various and sundry other bad actors throughout the Middle East.

[Judith Anne]

This article is a wonderful find. Thanks!

[DestroytheDemocrats]

You are right Al Gore is a prick who has made a fool of himself.

[Kirkwood]

The Truman Doctrine should more correctly be called the Reagan Doctrine because he understood what it should have been and how to apply it with greatest effect.

[Hugin]

Funny you should mention the Carter Doctrine. There really was an official policy called that. It stated that the Persian Gulf was a vital American strategic interest and comitted us to defend it. He even created the Rapid Deployment Force to do the job. Funny how the "No War for Oil" crowd forgets who was the first American president to formalize war for oil as a US policy.

[ilgipper]

bump, for a later read

[ilgipper]

bump, for a later read

[Rockitz]

Ping!

[EGPWS]

"Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."

And I DO believe Dubya has gone forth with a grand strategy!

Good to see it in print. Excellent post!

[DoughtyOne]

Reagan was the one who saw the Cold War through to its completion -- as such he was working within the framework of the "grand strategy" established by Roosevelt and Truman (I'm not sure why only Roosevelt and not also Truman get credit for the post WWII grand strategy). At least that's what I'm assuming Gaddis would say.

I believe this is a reasoned logical response, but I'm not quite willing to sign on to the rationalization.

IMO Roosevelt and Truman's grand scheme had withered on the vine by the time Carter came along twenty-five years later.  By the time his administration was over, their efforts were essentially laying in a heap in the corner.  Remember Carter's sweater laden Malase speach.  That was essentially a surrender on the world stage.  Once again, IMO, that was the last nail in the Roosevelt/Truman grand scheme's coffin.  Without a world-class leader following up Carter, the Soviet Union would be regarded as simply another world class state.

Heck, all of Europe was willing to let bygones be bygones.  Reagan had to send in Pershing II missiles essentially against their will.  When he played hard-ball in Raciavic (sp?), they, our democrats and even a good number of Republicans thought Reagan was nuts.  His 'Evil Empire' quote reinforced that thought.  His Space Defense Initiative grand design was simply the icing on the cake.  The democrats were thrilled to call him senile and the press did it's best to further that idea.

I believe that the eight years of Bill Clinton and his criminal crime syndicate undid much of what Ronald Reagan achieved for this nation.  It's a damned shame.  We would be a much different nation if a man with at least some morals had been president from 1992 to 2000.  Reagan's legacy was killed.  Although he gets some credit for his efforts, he is not recognized for the full merit of his efforts.

[DoughtyOne]

Speaking of getting facts straight, Reagan didn't run a deficit over $200 billion that I remember. I'm sure you know what this year's deficit looks like. Look, some of what Bush is having to spend is justifiable. Quite a bit of it isn't.

[Eva]

Great article, thanks. I hope that posters keep this bumped for the morning.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, Rapid Deployment Force? Was that the one that rescued our hostages in Iran? I don't remember his efforts in this direction. I guess that guy scared me so much I'd have laughed at the thought.

[Fledermaus]

Yes he did. Just not for very long.

Also, Bush 41's deficits were mostly due to the horrible 1986 tax policy Reagan signed. He traded off a 28% upper tax rate for all kinds of other tax increases (FICA) and bad policy like screwing with profit/loss determinations that devalued real estate and started the S&L slide.

Take out the funny S&L's found as the government had to bail them out, and the majority were the cause of Congress who were forced to honor their backing of deposits.

Reagan was suckered by the likes of Bob Dole on that one and Bush paid the price with very high deficits and later his presidency.

[ClancyJ]

Gee, one good article about Bush and you rush right in to trash him.

What a game - see who can rant about Bush the most!

I am getting a little tired of all the Bush bashing - in fact - turned off Hannity/Colmes, Scarborough, Greta and watched a movie.

If the man had done great harm to American citizens I could understand but what did he do?

Defended America when under attack, took the war to the terrorists, put all nations on notice that if they harbor terrorists, they too will be considered a terrorist nation, put Bin Laden in a cave, captured Saddam, freed a nation from a murdering, torturing leader, and is in the process of bringing a chance for freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq, reorganized American government to provide methods of insuring the safety of the homeland.

Gee - I can really see why Americans hate him - that includes the Bush-bashing "conservatives?".

They much, much prefer men like Clinton, Kerry. Men that will do all in their power to turn this nation over to the U.N. to lead, will welcome terrorists into our country and only put them in jail if caught killing American citizens.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that the 1982-1988 Congress of the United States failed the American public as much or worse than any other Congress, with the exception of the abdication of their responsibility during the Impreachment process. Of course Congress didn't abdicate all their responsibility. They didn't offer up all the charges they should have, but they at least did send up some articles.

The 1982-1988 Congress did their damndest to nulify anything that Reagan did. That was their main goal. In many regards, they were quite successful.

I can't imagine how much Reagan could have done with at least some people on his side. He fought the USSR, Europe, the UN and Capital Hill. He fought people in his own party who thought he was crazy.

I still believe that Reagan was never meant to be president. I bleieve he was just too charismatic to be stopped, and George Bush the elder had to wait eight long years due to that charisma. Reagan did not play along to get along. I believe he set back globalist plans for ten years.

[Vision Thing]

Whoa. I didn't think anyone at Harvard had the courage to question bill clinton, but check this out:

The end of the Cold War changed that (the need to contain the Soviets) and led, according to Professor Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Professor Gaddis observed.

Professor Gaddis slams bill clinton for being wrong, shallow, and asleep. That's a great way to summarize the clinton presidency.

[Vision Thing]

Gee - I can really see why Americans hate him - that includes the Bush-bashing "conservatives?".

The Bush-bashing "conservatives" are just pessimistic because no one but Reagan can live up to the Reagan standard.

Unfortunately for them, they don't realize how Carter-esque they sound when they wax pessimistic.

Unfortunately for them, pessimism is a very un-Reagan thing.

[thoughtomator]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%2Bmisunderestimate+%2Bstrategery&btnG=Google+Search

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

Gee, one good article about Bush and you rush right in to trash him.  What a game - see who can rant about Bush the most!  I am getting a little tired of all the Bush bashing - in fact - turned off Hannity/Colmes, Scarborough, Greta and watched a movie.  If the man had done great harm to American citizens I could understand but what did he do?  Defended America when under attack, took the war to the terrorists, put all nations on notice that if they harbor terrorists, they too will be considered a terrorist nation, put Bin Laden in a cave, captured Saddam, freed a nation from a murdering, torturing leader, and is in the process of bringing a chance for freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq, reorganized American government to provide methods of insuring the safety of the homeland.  Gee - I can really see why Americans hate him - that includes the Bush-bashing "conservatives?".  They much, much prefer men like Clinton, Kerry. Men that will do all in their power to turn this nation over to the U.N. to lead, will welcome terrorists into our country and only put them in jail if caught killing American citizens.
35 posted on 02/10/2004 10:39:49 PM PST by ClancyJ (It's just not safe to vote Democratic.)

I will vote for Bush this fall because there will be no one else who can win other than a U.N. loving, military hating leftist passing for a loyal citizen.  That does not mean I will like it.

As for the man George Bush, I like him.  I believe he is a moral man who simply doesn't know what conservatism is.  Let me explain.

I have a son.  I want him to understand what a conservative is.  I tell him that fiscal conservatism is important because this policy allows him to keep more of his own hard earned money to support his family.  I tell him that military conservatism holds no quarter with terrorists and defends it's own borders second to none.

I could go on, but let's look at these two topics.

My son can turn right around and say to me, "But dad, Bush is the top-dog conservative and he's running a $500 billion dollar deficit this year, has proposed a multiple hundred billion dollar medication healthcare bill, has raised the spending roof on the department of education and on and on..."  What can I tell the kid?  I can tell him that there's a war on terror, but that $500 billion isn't just the war on terrorism and the kid knows it.

When it comes to that war on terrorism and our borders, once again, what do I tell the kid?  We talk a grand scheme about terrorists, then allow the world's longest running terrorist to operate at will on the West Bank.  We said we would leave no rock unturned in the effort to rid the world of terrorists, then give Arafat a pass and condemn Israel when it defends itself.

As if this weren't bad enough, we allow millions to flood across our borders at will.  We offer up nothing more than token intervention even issuing orders for our border officers not to persue illegals in some instances.

We have arrested known terrorists who have entered our nation across the Mexican border, but continue to leave it wide open.  We allow over 95% of all shipped goods to enter the nation uninspected, but demand our families strip down at airports upon request.  We still allow people to immigrate from terrorist states.

I support Bush's efforts on the war in Iraq.  I support his efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Sadly, the guy won't pull the trigger when it comes to other things that need to be done.

When I tell people what conservatism truly is, they ask how I can say what I do when Bush doesn't seem to agree.  Frankly, that's an excellent question.