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

[ClancyJ]

Good comments. So glad you intend to vote for Bush.

Just mention to your son that there are many reasons - different people see conservatism in different degrees of conservatism; compassionate conservatism is what Bush stated he was - we are seeing compassionate conservatism; a President has to look at all agendas and pick those that he can accomplish - some are for now, others will be done later, others will not get done due to opposing forces.

We cannot expect one man to be perfectly aligned with our views and accomplish everything we wish to accomplish. A man has to direct his efforts to a few items and try and get them done - yet people expect all to be done or else.

All of these expectations in changing government when his top priority is fighting the war on terrorism. Just how much can one man accomplish in a 4-year period. Also, please note all the forces against him as he fights our battles while we sit back comfortably and criticize because he moved two steps forward when we expected 10 steps.

It might help matters if there was a little less criticism and more support and help. Yet - a president cannot expect that because people get scared if they don't agree with his every move. When scared, they fear they misread the man. Guess that is politics.

[ClancyJ]

You know - I get tired when I hear all the whining, bashing and criticism and I feel like just giving up. How must Bush feel?

He has to spend every waking moment calculating what the conservatives will say, what the democrats will say, what will be used against him, how this or that is interpreted. And we wonder why a president ages so much.

This president especially as so much rabid opposition is mounted against him - you would think he had run the terrorist organization himself with all the furor against him.

And, he has to fight a war and protect this homeland from attack - with every move being scrutinized by "committees" investigating him rather than the terrorism links trying to bring down this country.

No rabid rush to track down terrorists groups in the U.S. -no, only a rabid rush to find something to bring down Bush.

I am ashamed of our government representatives.

You would think our fellow Repubs would be mounting defenses for their president. They sure are quiet.

[DoughtyOne]

I want you to reread your last post to me and tell me when it would be okay for a conservative to address issues of a conservative nature.

As long as Bush is in office I'm supposed to offer up 'a little less' (read that no) criticism, support him and help.  Then in 2008 when another "conservative" runs, I'll need to support them and not criticize or they won't get elected.  And if they do get elected I shouldn't criticize or they'll never get anything done.  If they don't get elected I shouldn't speak up because I'll ruin their chances in four years.

This sounds like a thriving healthy conservative party to you?  Lordy!

I stated that I support the war on terroristm with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  I cannot support allowing Yasser Arafat to continue his terrorist ways, and the condemnation of Israel for defending itself.  I cannot defend open borders under dire terrorist desires to do us harm.  I cannot defend allowing people from terrorist states to immigrate here.  I cannot defend allowing commerce to enter our nation with as much as 98% of it going uninspected.  While I'd like to support the president with regard to his war on terrorism, we have at best a very selective partial war on terrorism.  With glaring holes in our terrorist safety net, we none the less have some of the most restrictive and draconian policies geared toward our own citizens.  Why?  If we're not going to go the whole nine yards, why not give our citizens the breaks, not the non-citizens from terrorist states and known terrorists?

I don't think this presidency or our nation is strengthened by silence on these issues.

[CyberAnt]

OMG the democrats are going to have cardiac arrest when they read this. This is most awesome. I bet Rush talks about this tomorrow.

I was channel surfing the other night and caught Tony Blankly and Eleanor Cliff going at it .. she was practically screaming while Tony was trying to talk, and Ed finally had to tell her to be quiet. It was the funniest thing I've ever seen. These democrats are really going off the deep end.

[CyberAnt]

I think you have Jim Robinson confused with DU!

[Ophiucus]

Available soon at Amazon!

Sweet

[Carolinamom]

Mega thanks for this ping!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

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."

Excellent assessment.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[windchime]

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

Great find, Kattracks! Happy to oblige on the bump.

[kellynla]

Now if GWB would secure the borders, deport the illegals and eliminate the deficit spending...we just might make a conservative out of him before November 2...

[TexasNative2000]

Thanks for the post. It is another in a long line of "Bush is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers" articles by honest intellects.

[reformedliberal]

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.

---

Tell him that we have a Congress and specifically the House, whose job it is to dispose of the proposals made by the POTUS in a budget. Point out that Tom DeLay and a coalition of House conservatives is slashing this budget to the bone. It will be a huge fight and there is no way he can miss it.

Point out that we are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan because GWB will not quit and run, & therefore the supplemental for the military appropriations will be much lower than projected.

DeLay's team has a goal of cutting the deficit to zero in 5 years. I don't know if that can be done. W wants to cut it in half in 5 years. I don't know if that can be done. But the only way we have a chance is to elect conservatives and have a President in office who will sign/veto in favor of less spending. W has promised to veto any increase. Daschle wants to add 18.4% to the gas tax to distribute more tax monies to the States via the Highway Bill.

We got here via liberal incrementalism. We get out of it via conservative incrementalism.

Bush's Medicare and Social Security reforms will privatize these for the younger ones. That will end them as a weapon of choice for the liberals.

And I am glad you will vote for Bush. I don't think you will regret it, but it will be contentious nailbiter of a 2nd term, IMO.

[edwin hubble]

Great Post.

This is big stuff.

It is the answer to the question:

Would we be safer with Saddam in power, Ben Laden in his fortified camps, and the UN dictating terms and conditions of our national security?

(specifically the latter question).

[windchime]

Article puts the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into perspective.

[alnick]

I want you to reread your last post to me and tell me when it would be okay for a conservative to address issues of a conservative nature.

Well, for starters you could express your criticism about domestic spending on a thread about domestic spending.

[windchime]

Bump!

[hoosiermama]

Thanks for the ping! That a book I'd like to read.

[nuconvert]

Yes it is. But don't tell the rest of the media or Dems that.

[OldFriend]

We must find a way around the leftist america hating media.

Truth as it is written in this book will never be a part of their so called reporting.