Where is the Debate over the Bush Doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salon's Glenn Greenwald raises a critical point: if it's not an issue, it isn't important where the next President stands on it and that is frightening.
Sep. 14, 2008 | (updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)
Until Sarah Palin made clear she had never heard of it, nobody -- including the presidential candidates -- had trouble understanding what it was.
Before it became clear that Sarah Palin had never heard of it, nobody -- including the presidential candidates themselves -- ever had difficulty answering questions about what they believed about the Bush Doctrine, nor ever suggested that this Doctrine was some amorphous, impossible-to-understand, abstract irrelevancy. Quite the contrary, despite some differences over exactly what it means, it was widely understood to constitute a radical departure -- at least in theory -- from our governing foreign policy doctrine, and it is that Doctrine which has unquestionably fueled much of the foreign policy disasters of the last eight years.
In 2003, the American Enterprise Institute's Thomas Donnelly wrote an article entitled "The Underpinnngs of the Bush Doctrine," and argued that "the Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles"; that it "represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force"; and "the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy." Donnelly had no trouble understanding and articulating exactly what the Bush Doctrine meant: namely, a declaration that the U.S. has the right to -- and will -- start wars against countries even if they have not attacked us and are not imminently going to do so:
Taken together, American principles, interests, and systemic responsibilities argue strongly in favor of an active and expansive stance of strategic primacy and a continued willingness to employ military force. Within that context, and given the ways in which nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction can distort normal calculations of international power relationships, there is a compelling need to hold open the option of -- and indeed, to build forces more capable of -- preemptive strike operations. The United States must take a wider view of the traditional doctrine of "imminent danger," considering how such dangers might threaten not only its direct interests, but its allies, the liberal international order, and the opportunities for greater freedom in the world.
Put more simply: " The message of the Bush Doctrine -- "Don't even think about it!" -- rests in part on a logic of preemption that underlies the logic of primacy."
A few months earlier, Norman Podhoretz wrote a long cover story for Commentary -- entitled "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine" (sub. rq'd) -- in which he argued that "To those with ears to hear, the State of the Union address should have removed all traces of ambiguity from the Bush Doctrine." He, too, pointed out the obvious: that from this point froward, the U.S. "would also take preemptive action whenever it might be deemed necessary." The extreme deceit that lies at heart of neoconservativism is vividly illustrated by the willingness of their leading lights -- such as Charles Krauthammer and NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon -- suddenly to proclaim that the Bush Doctrine is far too amorphous for Sarah Palin or anyone else to be able to opine on it, even after their Godfather years ago declared that "all traces of ambiguity from the Bush Doctrine" have been removed for "those with ears."
That the Bush Doctrine is both clear and central had continued to be accepted fact into the 2008 election. In January of this year in New Hampshire, Charlie Gibson himself asked the presidential candidates about their views of the Bush Doctrine during the primary debates he hosted. Nobody had any trouble answering it:
GIBSON: Congressman Paul, let me ask you, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?
CONG. RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this.
Earlier in the debate, Gibson had this exchange with John McCain:
GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.
Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.
But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack; that we can attack if this country feels threatened. . . . Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN,(R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.
The same night, Gibson hosted the Democratic candidates in a debate, and after Obama explained his belief that the U.S. should bomb locations in Pakistan if we know where Al Qaeda elements are and the Pakistani Government won't act against them, this exchange occurred:
GIBSON: I'm going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. . . .
Let me just pick up on a couple of things that have been said. And I think people are in broad agreement here. But I think one of the things that's been left out is Iraq. And part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice. And that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't.
It's certainly reasonable to argue that, in some respects, the Bush Doctrine has no precise meaning and is subject to debate, and Gibson provided some vague definitional parameters when asking the presidential candidates about it. None of that negates that Palin appeared quite clearly never to have even heard of the term "The Bush Doctrine" before ("His world view?"), leading one to wonder if she has paid any attention at all to the central foreign policy debates over the last eight years and whether she even watched or was vaguely aware of the presidential debates this year and many of the most critical expressed differences between the candidates -- including the one with whom she's running.
Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by Palin's so-called "lack of experience." I considered the fact that Obama hadn't spent large amounts of time enmeshed in our horrific Washington Establishment to be one of the strengths of his candidacy, and I largely view Palin's lack of Washington experience the same way. The difference isn't their "experience," but the fact that one has had almost two full years to judge Obama's views, positions, approaches, thought-processes and capacity for judgment as he's been subjected to the glaring scrutiny of the campaign, and a complete picture of Obama, for better or worse, has emerged.
By stark contrast, Palin is a blank slate -- not just in terms of what we know about her, but worse, in terms of what her beliefs are. Outside of a few discrete issues of interest to her (drilling for oil and opposition to environmentalism), and aside from some deep religious fervor and trite right-wing slogans that have been implanted in her brain during these last several weeks, she doesn't really appear to have any actual thoughts about most political matters. As John Cole put it: "Sarah Palin is the distilled essence of wingnut. She has it all. She is dishonest. She is a religious nut. She is incurious. She is anti-science. She is inexperienced. She abuses her authority. She hides behind executive privilege. She is a big spender. She works from the gut and places a greater value on instinct than knowledge."
To see why that matters, look at this excerpt today from a new book by The Washington Post's Barton Gellman, which details how Dick Cheney's office exerted virtually exclusive control over large numbers of key U.S. programs, and specifically over the illegal warrantless eavesdropping program -- facts that Gellman had previously documented. There is every reason to believe that Palin, too, would wield very substantial power as Vice President.
In general, the White House is now far and away the most powerful branch of our government -- state power is centralized there to an unprecedented degree. The presidency is so powerful that it's almost impossible for a President not to share substantial responsibility with the Vice President. Moreover, if McCain wins, he is quite likely to perceive -- accurately -- that his victory was due in large part to Palin and the enthusiasm she generated. Independently, her immense political popularity (Sic: as opposed to competencies) among key GOP factions will empower her. The fact that McCain seems completely uninterested in any issues other than fighting and starting wars and his petty fixation on earmarks -- underscored by his acute indifference to domestic policy -- will leave vast areas for her to manage. His advanced age and previous health problems makes it far more likely than usual that the Vice President will become President.
More alarming than the extremism of the positions that she has clearly formed is the fact that, as her startling ignorance of "the Bush Doctrine" reflects, she doesn't seem to have clearly formed positions on very much of anything. She's clearly willing to spout standard right-wing talking points, and perhaps that's all she'll ever end up embracing, but it's one's inability to know any of that, and the McCain campaign's commitment to ensuring that we won't find out between now and November, that makes her potential ascendancy to that office so deeply disturbing.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald raises a critical point: if it's not an issue, it isn't important where the next President stands on it and that is frightening.
Sep. 14, 2008 | (updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)
Until Sarah Palin made clear she had never heard of it, nobody -- including the presidential candidates -- had trouble understanding what it was.
Before it became clear that Sarah Palin had never heard of it, nobody -- including the presidential candidates themselves -- ever had difficulty answering questions about what they believed about the Bush Doctrine, nor ever suggested that this Doctrine was some amorphous, impossible-to-understand, abstract irrelevancy. Quite the contrary, despite some differences over exactly what it means, it was widely understood to constitute a radical departure -- at least in theory -- from our governing foreign policy doctrine, and it is that Doctrine which has unquestionably fueled much of the foreign policy disasters of the last eight years.
In 2003, the American Enterprise Institute's Thomas Donnelly wrote an article entitled "The Underpinnngs of the Bush Doctrine," and argued that "the Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles"; that it "represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force"; and "the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy." Donnelly had no trouble understanding and articulating exactly what the Bush Doctrine meant: namely, a declaration that the U.S. has the right to -- and will -- start wars against countries even if they have not attacked us and are not imminently going to do so:
Taken together, American principles, interests, and systemic responsibilities argue strongly in favor of an active and expansive stance of strategic primacy and a continued willingness to employ military force. Within that context, and given the ways in which nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction can distort normal calculations of international power relationships, there is a compelling need to hold open the option of -- and indeed, to build forces more capable of -- preemptive strike operations. The United States must take a wider view of the traditional doctrine of "imminent danger," considering how such dangers might threaten not only its direct interests, but its allies, the liberal international order, and the opportunities for greater freedom in the world.
Put more simply: " The message of the Bush Doctrine -- "Don't even think about it!" -- rests in part on a logic of preemption that underlies the logic of primacy."
A few months earlier, Norman Podhoretz wrote a long cover story for Commentary -- entitled "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine" (sub. rq'd) -- in which he argued that "To those with ears to hear, the State of the Union address should have removed all traces of ambiguity from the Bush Doctrine." He, too, pointed out the obvious: that from this point froward, the U.S. "would also take preemptive action whenever it might be deemed necessary." The extreme deceit that lies at heart of neoconservativism is vividly illustrated by the willingness of their leading lights -- such as Charles Krauthammer and NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon -- suddenly to proclaim that the Bush Doctrine is far too amorphous for Sarah Palin or anyone else to be able to opine on it, even after their Godfather years ago declared that "all traces of ambiguity from the Bush Doctrine" have been removed for "those with ears."
That the Bush Doctrine is both clear and central had continued to be accepted fact into the 2008 election. In January of this year in New Hampshire, Charlie Gibson himself asked the presidential candidates about their views of the Bush Doctrine during the primary debates he hosted. Nobody had any trouble answering it:
GIBSON: Congressman Paul, let me ask you, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?
CONG. RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this.
Earlier in the debate, Gibson had this exchange with John McCain:
GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.
Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.
But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack; that we can attack if this country feels threatened. . . . Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN,(R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.
The same night, Gibson hosted the Democratic candidates in a debate, and after Obama explained his belief that the U.S. should bomb locations in Pakistan if we know where Al Qaeda elements are and the Pakistani Government won't act against them, this exchange occurred:
GIBSON: I'm going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. . . .
Let me just pick up on a couple of things that have been said. And I think people are in broad agreement here. But I think one of the things that's been left out is Iraq. And part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice. And that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't.
It's certainly reasonable to argue that, in some respects, the Bush Doctrine has no precise meaning and is subject to debate, and Gibson provided some vague definitional parameters when asking the presidential candidates about it. None of that negates that Palin appeared quite clearly never to have even heard of the term "The Bush Doctrine" before ("His world view?"), leading one to wonder if she has paid any attention at all to the central foreign policy debates over the last eight years and whether she even watched or was vaguely aware of the presidential debates this year and many of the most critical expressed differences between the candidates -- including the one with whom she's running.
Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by Palin's so-called "lack of experience." I considered the fact that Obama hadn't spent large amounts of time enmeshed in our horrific Washington Establishment to be one of the strengths of his candidacy, and I largely view Palin's lack of Washington experience the same way. The difference isn't their "experience," but the fact that one has had almost two full years to judge Obama's views, positions, approaches, thought-processes and capacity for judgment as he's been subjected to the glaring scrutiny of the campaign, and a complete picture of Obama, for better or worse, has emerged.
By stark contrast, Palin is a blank slate -- not just in terms of what we know about her, but worse, in terms of what her beliefs are. Outside of a few discrete issues of interest to her (drilling for oil and opposition to environmentalism), and aside from some deep religious fervor and trite right-wing slogans that have been implanted in her brain during these last several weeks, she doesn't really appear to have any actual thoughts about most political matters. As John Cole put it: "Sarah Palin is the distilled essence of wingnut. She has it all. She is dishonest. She is a religious nut. She is incurious. She is anti-science. She is inexperienced. She abuses her authority. She hides behind executive privilege. She is a big spender. She works from the gut and places a greater value on instinct than knowledge."
To see why that matters, look at this excerpt today from a new book by The Washington Post's Barton Gellman, which details how Dick Cheney's office exerted virtually exclusive control over large numbers of key U.S. programs, and specifically over the illegal warrantless eavesdropping program -- facts that Gellman had previously documented. There is every reason to believe that Palin, too, would wield very substantial power as Vice President.
In general, the White House is now far and away the most powerful branch of our government -- state power is centralized there to an unprecedented degree. The presidency is so powerful that it's almost impossible for a President not to share substantial responsibility with the Vice President. Moreover, if McCain wins, he is quite likely to perceive -- accurately -- that his victory was due in large part to Palin and the enthusiasm she generated. Independently, her immense political popularity (Sic: as opposed to competencies) among key GOP factions will empower her. The fact that McCain seems completely uninterested in any issues other than fighting and starting wars and his petty fixation on earmarks -- underscored by his acute indifference to domestic policy -- will leave vast areas for her to manage. His advanced age and previous health problems makes it far more likely than usual that the Vice President will become President.
More alarming than the extremism of the positions that she has clearly formed is the fact that, as her startling ignorance of "the Bush Doctrine" reflects, she doesn't seem to have clearly formed positions on very much of anything. She's clearly willing to spout standard right-wing talking points, and perhaps that's all she'll ever end up embracing, but it's one's inability to know any of that, and the McCain campaign's commitment to ensuring that we won't find out between now and November, that makes her potential ascendancy to that office so deeply disturbing.
posted by Anonymous | 1:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home