Elements of the Bush Doctrine Will Outlive the Bush Presidency

Ray · 05-08-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Elements of the Bush Doctrine Will Outlive the Bush Presidency

Alan W. Dowd | Bio | 05 May 2008
World Politics Review Exclusive

President George W. Bush has been dismissed as a lame duck, but it appears that significant elements of the doctrine that bears his name will endure long after he leaves the White House.

Although we haven't heard much about the Bush Doctrine in recent years, its impact on American foreign policy -- both positive and negative -- is as significant as it is misunderstood.

The doctrine is generally associated with the preventive war against Iraq, but it has more than one component. The first was unveiled during Bush's address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, long before the U.S. swept into Iraq. "From this day forward," Bush explained, "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Few had a problem with the Bush Doctrine in this, its fetal stage. Most observers concluded that Bush was aiming his rhetoric -- and America's military might -- at the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which indeed he was.

But then, in those heady days after the U.S. military's rapid defeat of the medieval Taliban, Bush began to outline something far more radical than simply rolling back terrorist organizations and the states that harbor and fund them.

In Bush's view, Iran, Kim Jong Il's half of Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, "and their terrorist allies" comprised "an axis of evil" that had to be confronted. "The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons," he declared in his 2002 State of the Union. By autumn of that year, with the release of a new National Security Strategy, the doctrine was complete: "As a matter of common sense and self-defense," the document explained, "America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed."

Phase One of the Bush Doctrine was applied in Afghanistan, where it succeeded at taking down the Taliban and scattering and weakening al-Qaida. However, the Taliban continues to fight, al-Qaida's fragmented leadership survives in Pakistan, and the war goes on.

Phase Two of the doctrine was applied in Iraq, where it succeeded at eliminating a looming threat and preventing Hussein's thugocracy from reconstituting, redeploying or sharing its WMD program. Along the way, the ouster and capture of Hussein persuaded Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi to give up his WMD program in what might be called an act of preemptive surrender. However, the war against Hussein seemed to have the opposite effect on the other major pieces of the axis of evil, as Iran and North Korea pushed ahead with nuclear programs and Hezbollah launched a war against Israel. Worse yet, the preventive war in Iraq led to a postwar insurgency that has claimed 4,000 Americans.

In short, neither part of the Bush Doctrine has been a complete success -- that is, unless one defines success as protecting the American homeland from another 9/11. And by this measure, it has been an unqualified success.

It pays to recall that polls taken immediately after 9/11 show 80 percent of Americans were bracing for more attacks. In September 2002, the Washington Post reported that U.S. officials were worried about "low-level . . . but deadly attacks" against the United States.

The enemy promised as much. But the follow-on attacks did not materialize. Instead, as historian Paul Johnson has observed, "America obliged the leaders of international terrorism to concentrate all their efforts on preventing democracy from emerging in Iraq."

In a wordless way, many Americans understand that the Bush Doctrine's proactive posture has put the enemy on the defensive and shifted the battlefront away from New York and Washington and Shanksville. They understand the harsh but sound calculus of this doctrine and the war it directs -- that it is better for American troops to fight and die in places like Kandahar and Basra than it is for American civilians to die in places like Manhattan. In fact, American troops call the war on terror their "away game."

Perhaps the Bush Doctrine's success at protecting the homeland is why some of Bush's harshest critics -- the people vying to become his successor -- have embraced, unwittingly or otherwise, elements of the Bush Doctrine.

Sen. John McCain was a rival to Bush long before Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama. But if elected, the Arizona senator will carry the Bush Doctrine mantle with gusto.

Although he was an early critic of how the postwar war in Iraq was prosecuted, he was an early supporter of both elements of the Bush Doctrine, and continues to embrace them today. As he put it earlier this spring, "We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West."

Sounding like Bush did on the eve of the Afghanistan campaign, McCain believes the U.S. "must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states."

Plus, McCain is realistic about the looming threat posed by Iran. "There's only one thing worse than military action against Iran," he soberly concludes. "And that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Clinton falls somewhere between McCain and Obama on the Bush Doctrine metric. She represents New York, the very epicenter of the enemy's war on America, the place where the ground smoldered with fire and smoke for almost three months. She walked the ruins of the World Trade Center and weathered the salvos of the anthrax blitz in the weeks that followed. If she was not a hawk before that fateful fall, one can understand why she is more hawkish now. History's pivot points have a way of changing and focusing the mind.

In fact, she staked out a decidedly hawkish position on Iraq from 2002-2006. When Howard Dean and others raised the prospect of pulling out of Iraq, she argued, "We need a bigger presence." But she is running for the Democratic nomination, and as a savvy politician she knows her party is not full of hawks. Thus, she has vowed to withdraw U.S. forces and foreswear preemptive war.

However, Clinton goes off the charts on the Bush Doctrine metric in her ultra-hard line with the Iranians, threatening that "their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States." She even suggests creating a Cold War-style U.S. nuclear umbrella for Israel and "other countries that might be intimidated and bulled into submission by Iran," promising to "make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel."

Not even Bush has gone that far.

Indeed, at times, Clinton has sounded more like Bush than Bush himself. Echoing the impatient Bush of late 2002 and early 2003 -- when the president was primed to unleash the U.S. military against Saddam Hussein, only to be delayed by a detour through the U.N. -- Clinton has argued that the U.S. "lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource negotiations."

Obama would dismantle more of the Bush Doctrine than the other two candidates. He says he would begin withdrawing from Iraq "immediately" and would talk to -- rather than threaten -- Iran. But even in the post-Bush foreign policy envisioned by Obama, one can see traces of the Bush Doctrine.

For example, Obama proposes deploying "a counterterrorism force to strike al-Qaida" in Iraq. He argues that "we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America's homeland. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al-Qaida targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot."

Like it or not, that's the Bush Doctrine, at least Phase One of the Bush Doctrine. As Bush promised after 9/11, the U.S. would take "decisive actions against terrorist organizations and those who harbor and sponsor them."

To be sure, it is unlikely that the next president will invoke the Bush Doctrine by name -- after all, President Dwight Eisenhower didn't throw around the words "Truman Doctrine." But the next president will employ elements of the Bush Doctrine, if for no other reason than this: it has succeeded at protecting the U.S. homeland.

Alan. W. Dowd is a contributing editor with World Politics Review.

Photo: President Bush at a White House press conference, December 2007.

Whether one appreciates or decries the Bush Doctrine, one has to admit that it has changed the world!

Dreadnought · 05-08-2008, 12:27 PM

Amazing how so many have criticized his methods but yet understand his reasoning. History will judge him better then the present press/politicians no doubt. He has protected the country since 911. Now we shall see how those that want his office and criticize him to no end shall defend this great country against the very same and stick to their words that they can do it better. I cant wait to see their popularity for doing such an "upopular" job.

Perhaps, If a Democrat held office and their popularity plummets from defending the nation maybe more will realize that doing an upopular job certainly will make you unpopular although it protects the nation.

rat · 05-08-2008, 13:14 PM

It is still too early to judge the long term effects of Bush doctrine. It will be interesting to see when and how US pulls out of Iraq and if the new Iraq stabilizes or becomes another conflict zone.

Ray · 05-08-2008, 13:36 PM

It is not Bush who is behind the doctrine. It is the shadowy character Cheney! A scheming mind, but in my opinion, more scheming and brilliant than Kissinger or Dulles!

Bush sr was right to make his son accept Bush sr’s Secretary of Defence as the VP!

I don’t subscribe to what they are doing, but I cannot shy away from admiring them for their sheer brilliance!

The Cheney Doctrine that he formulated as the Secretary of Defence with Wolfowitz along with the National Energy Policy is a goldmine for all military commentators since the same is unfolding today!

Emasculate Russia, ensure oil security, box in China and keep US as the sole global superpower!

Ray · 05-08-2008, 13:37 PM

No one is leaving Iraq or Afghanistan!

Ears and eyes of Cardinal Richelieu!

rat · 05-08-2008, 14:12 PM

The invasion of Iraq is self sustaining... They have the oil... Hence they will not be leaving it soon. But sometime or the other, they will pull out... I cannot guess if it will be within 5 years or 15 years

Ray · 05-08-2008, 14:17 PM

Oil is not of paramount concern.

Oil will always be there!

Emasculating Russia and China is!

They are the treats!

I have written enough here to repeat again!

bolo121 · 05-08-2008, 14:32 PM

Quote:

I don’t subscribe to what they are doing, but I cannot shy away from admiring them for their sheer brilliance!

Have to admit sir, that Cheney is really modern day Cardinal Richelieu of the US. Doing bad things yes, but such cunning, such deception!

S-2 · 05-08-2008, 16:43 PM

Brigadier,

"I don’t subscribe to what they are doing, but I cannot shy away from admiring them for their sheer brilliance!"

No empires here. Just keeping the world safe for your posts, Brigadier. Surely you don't want us to withdraw from Iraq precipitously. Neither can I imagine you, of all people, wanting the mullahs of Iran to hold a nuclear strangle-hold on the world's energy supplies. And Afghanistan is both a national obligation in light of 9/11 for America, good business for Afghanistan's future if seen through and a great good fortune for India's strategic posture w/ Pakistan.

No sir. I'm certain that whatever tactical faux pas' have been found, you won't object to those strategic objectives and requirements. As to those tactical faux pas, I know that you've since found the U.S. Army and U.S.M.C. to be remarkably adaptive cultural creatures with more social inquisitiveness than you could heretofore imagine, particularly in RC-East and al-Anbar.

As such, you've been comforted by our military's adaptiveness which has mitigated much of the early damage caused by Cheney's less astute neo-con knights and laid the ground-work for a resurrection of American political objectives as nearly and innocently intended- if at a greater cost of time and lives.

Still, no plan survives contact and we've found that bad operational plans absolutely don't. That's encouraging. Having found our balance I've little doubt that we'll be splendid on the next phase of "Global Democratic Transformation- Whether You Want It Or Not".

Bet that thought really warms the cockles of your heart, Brigadier!

Cactus · 05-08-2008, 18:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

And Afghanistan is both a national obligation in light of 9/11 for America, good business for Afghanistan's future if seen through and a great good fortune for India's strategic posture w/ Pakistan.

Not necessarily a great "good fortune" yet - but yes, an accidental good opportunity surely. Many a meal lost between the hand and the mouth, etc, etc. Conservative thinkers among Indians, while sure of the direction of events still seem uneasy with the accelerated pace of events (and not without good reason). Moralists among them will, no doubt, point out that nothing that starts with the misfortune of others (9/11) can definitely lead to good fortune of oneself - at the best it can be viewed as opening up opportunity, no more.

S-2 · 05-08-2008, 23:05 PM

"Not necessarily a great "good fortune" yet - but yes, an accidental good opportunity surely. Many a meal lost between the hand and the mouth, etc, etc.

Since when has any trajectory been etched in stone? Nothing is a given but America's geo-political leverage has not gone to hell in a hand-basket and has, instead, afforded regional opportunities that weren't perceivable in 2006.

"Conservative thinkers among Indians, while sure of the direction of events still seem uneasy with the accelerated pace of events (and not without good reason)."

Much has changed already, however clumsy it may seem to our scrutiny. As to acceleration, hold onto your hat. The pedals not jammed to the metal yet. We've a ways to go and speed to burn.

Ray · 05-09-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolo121

Have to admit sir, that Cheney is really modern day Cardinal Richelieu of the US. Doing bad things yes, but such cunning, such deception!

Bad things for others, maybe.

But great things for the US!!

The value of Cheney will be understood after some years as the value of buying Alaska is being understood now!!

bolo121 · 05-09-2008, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Bad things for others, maybe.

But great things for the US!!

The value of Cheney will be understood after some years as the value of buying Alaska is being understood now!!

I understood that as well sir, after all the Cardinal may have thought of himself but he also thought of France.
If only our politicians would understand this.

Ray · 05-09-2008, 03:16 AM

S -2,

I will reply your post once I find the time for the same. One liners would do the trick.

Oscar · 05-09-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolo121

I understood that as well sir, after all the Cardinal may have thought of himself but he also thought of France.
If only our politicians would understand this.

Well I've read posts comparing Cheney with Hitler....now he's Richelieu

maybe he's between both

For me he's a sincere patriot blinded by hubris who overestimated America's strength and its ability to change the face of the world. "We are America we can go it alone" Imagine Richelieu saying that !

Just like the Cardinal he stole public money too but I think that's the only way where you can relate them.

05-08-2008, 12:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 4,970 Country:	Amazing how so many have criticized his methods but yet understand his reasoning. History will judge him better then the present press/politicians no doubt. He has protected the country since 911. Now we shall see how those that want his office and criticize him to no end shall defend this great country against the very same and stick to their words that they can do it better. I cant wait to see their popularity for doing such an "upopular" job. Perhaps, If a Democrat held office and their popularity plummets from defending the nation maybe more will realize that doing an upopular job certainly will make you unpopular although it protects the nation. __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure. Last edited by Dreadnought : 05-08-2008 at 12:31 PM.

05-08-2008, 16:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 1,925 Country:	Ray Reply Brigadier, "I don’t subscribe to what they are doing, but I cannot shy away from admiring them for their sheer brilliance!" No empires here. Just keeping the world safe for your posts, Brigadier. Surely you don't want us to withdraw from Iraq precipitously. Neither can I imagine you, of all people, wanting the mullahs of Iran to hold a nuclear strangle-hold on the world's energy supplies. And Afghanistan is both a national obligation in light of 9/11 for America, good business for Afghanistan's future if seen through and a great good fortune for India's strategic posture w/ Pakistan. No sir. I'm certain that whatever tactical faux pas' have been found, you won't object to those strategic objectives and requirements. As to those tactical faux pas, I know that you've since found the U.S. Army and U.S.M.C. to be remarkably adaptive cultural creatures with more social inquisitiveness than you could heretofore imagine, particularly in RC-East and al-Anbar. As such, you've been comforted by our military's adaptiveness which has mitigated much of the early damage caused by Cheney's less astute neo-con knights and laid the ground-work for a resurrection of American political objectives as nearly and innocently intended- if at a greater cost of time and lives. Still, no plan survives contact and we've found that bad operational plans absolutely don't. That's encouraging. Having found our balance I've little doubt that we'll be splendid on the next phase of "Global Democratic Transformation- Whether You Want It Or Not". Bet that thought really warms the cockles of your heart, Brigadier! __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

05-08-2008, 23:05 PM	#11 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 1,925 Country:	Cactus Reply "Not necessarily a great "good fortune" yet - but yes, an accidental good opportunity surely. Many a meal lost between the hand and the mouth, etc, etc. Since when has any trajectory been etched in stone? Nothing is a given but America's geo-political leverage has not gone to hell in a hand-basket and has, instead, afforded regional opportunities that weren't perceivable in 2006. "Conservative thinkers among Indians, while sure of the direction of events still seem uneasy with the accelerated pace of events (and not without good reason)." Much has changed already, however clumsy it may seem to our scrutiny. As to acceleration, hold onto your hat. The pedals not jammed to the metal yet. We've a ways to go and speed to burn.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bush Orders Domestic Spying.	Bulgaroctonus	Political Discussions	191	02-23-2008 12:08 PM
India’s “cold Start War Doctrine” Revisited	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	0	07-10-2007 13:08 PM
INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED	Ray	Land Forces	77	05-28-2006 01:34 AM
Dead Marine's Mom Protests at Bush Ranch	THL	The War in Iraq	88	08-19-2005 12:46 PM

05-08-2008, 13:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
rat Regular Join Date: 04-23-08 Location: Dublin Posts: 66 Country:	It is still too early to judge the long term effects of Bush doctrine. It will be interesting to see when and how US pulls out of Iraq and if the new Iraq stabilizes or becomes another conflict zone.

05-08-2008, 13:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,977 Country:	It is not Bush who is behind the doctrine. It is the shadowy character Cheney! A scheming mind, but in my opinion, more scheming and brilliant than Kissinger or Dulles! Bush sr was right to make his son accept Bush sr’s Secretary of Defence as the VP! I don’t subscribe to what they are doing, but I cannot shy away from admiring them for their sheer brilliance! The Cheney Doctrine that he formulated as the Secretary of Defence with Wolfowitz along with the National Energy Policy is a goldmine for all military commentators since the same is unfolding today! Emasculate Russia, ensure oil security, box in China and keep US as the sole global superpower!

05-08-2008, 13:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,977 Country:	No one is leaving Iraq or Afghanistan! Ears and eyes of Cardinal Richelieu!

05-08-2008, 14:12 PM	#6 (permalink)
rat Regular Join Date: 04-23-08 Location: Dublin Posts: 66 Country:	The invasion of Iraq is self sustaining... They have the oil... Hence they will not be leaving it soon. But sometime or the other, they will pull out... I cannot guess if it will be within 5 years or 15 years

05-08-2008, 14:17 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,977 Country:	Oil is not of paramount concern. Oil will always be there! Emasculating Russia and China is! They are the treats! I have written enough here to repeat again!

05-09-2008, 03:16 AM	#14 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,977 Country:	S -2, I will reply your post once I find the time for the same. One liners would do the trick.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)