Skip to comments.The Bush doctrine
Posted on 09/12/2008 11:00:30 AM PDT by Exton1
In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell
For eight years the Clinton Administration preached the need for exquisite sensitivity to the Russians. They'd had a rough time. They needed nurturing from their new American friends.
They got it. We fed them loans, knowing that much of the money would disappear corruptly. We turned away from atrocity in Chechnya lest we weaken the new Russian state. But most important, we went weak in the knees on missile defense. The prospect of American antiballistic missiles upset the Russians. And upsetting the Russians was something we simply were not to do.
In the liberal internationalist view of the world, the U.S. is merely one among many--a stronger country, yes, but one that has to adapt itself to the will and the needs of "the international community."
This is folly. America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Now I understand why Sarah Palin asked Charlie Gibson to clarify his question about the “Bush Doctrine”.
Too many definitions of the Bush Doctrine exist to be able to comment without knowing which one is being referred to.
That lays it all out pretty clearly. Not. I don't believe there is a Bush Doctrine per se. Of course, we can deduce his worldview from his various policies, actions and diplomacy, but they are not wrapped up in one neat little package anywhere I can find.
Now I understand why Sarah Palin asked Charlie Gibson to clarify his question about the Bush Doctrine.
"Invade all Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity"
Makes Charlie Gibson's question even more disingenuous than it was.
There are at least four very different versions of a “Bush Doctrine”.... and none is THE official version since there is NO official version. The “Bush Doctrine” is a media creation and different columnists and reporters have very different ideas of what “it” might be.
Here are four plausible versions:
(1) strategic unilateralism (”don’t ask but TELL”) on a wide variety of international problems
(2) developing democracy in the Middle East as a bulwark against terrorism and Islamo-fascism
(3) the USA and willing allies will go to war if necessary to enforce security, especially after long lists of UN Security Council resolutions have failed to do so ala Iraq
(4) the USA will engage in “pre-emptive self-defense” when it judges that conditions require us to do so
.... and so on......
Gibson was trying to trick Palin with a question that could not be addressed without a lengthy analysis and discussion of the myriad things that Gibson might mean by the “Bush Doctrine” — and then of course Gibson would have been interrupting ......
re: “Here are four plausible* versions”
* I mean “plausible” only in the sense of plausible recitations of what a “Bush Doctrine” might be, not that every one of those statements is equally plausbible as policy.
I would qualify each of them in certain ways, and I have always been a lot more skeptical than many that (2) should be front and center of our active policy in the Middle East. NOT that I don’t think we shouldn’t say that ultimately democratic republics are the best form of government, but that we should not de-stabilize countries like Egypt and Saudia Arabia unless/until we are damned sure what is going to replace them. Otherwise we are just doing what Jimmy Carter did to the Shah in the late ‘70s, and look how well THAT turned out!!
Can someone explain to me why it is so important for Govenor Palin to understand the BUSH Doctrine? Isn’t what is important is that, if elected, she undertand the McCain/Palin Doctrine? This was just one in a long line of ‘gotcha’ questions conservatives always have to deal with.
I loved the steely eyed, firm jawed, no ‘blink’ gaze she leveled at Charlie once she caught on that his sole intent was to embarrass and trip her up! Go Sarah!
There’s a problem with that?
Charlie was obviously setting her up with the question. No matter how she answered, he would be able to say she was either thought too much like Bush or she was stupid because she didn't know what the doctrine was. (As if there is a written textbook definition.)
I would have asked for clarification too. That doesn't make me or her stupid.