The Palin Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war is the first time in history that America has given up on diplomacy as a cornerstone of foreign policy.
The problem is not that Palin didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was in the ABC interview by Charles Gibson, but that she hadn’t thought about what “preemptive” war and what it means for the country…and that is no end of wars started by the U.S. any time it feels threatened…like the one in Iraq. Palin has indicated the U.S. must attack any country that appears to be threatening. Is this what we want? Think about it.
Sunday Sept. 14, 2008 10:48 EDT
Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com
Where is the debate over the Bush Doctrine?
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:
Tags: Bush Doctrine, Palin Doctrine, preemptive war, USA, World Watching And Politics
Zoe
Leave a Reply