the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2006, 11:58 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:54 AM
the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

[q]The end of cowboy diplomacy
Why the 'Bush Doctrine' no longer works for Bush administration

Sunday, July 9, 2006; Posted: 12:46 p.m. EDT (16:46 GMT)

Time.com -- All the good feeling at the White House at President Bush's early birthday party on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that the president finds himself in a world of hurt.

A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory.

And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland.

Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.

Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.

The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.

Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years.

After September 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it.

They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help.

The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.

But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation.

The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/09/cov....tm/index.html

[/q]



now, i would never say "i told you so" ... but i knew it.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:06 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:54 AM
Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]


now, i would never say "i told you so" ... but i knew it.
Me too, Irvine. Me too.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:22 PM   #3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:54 AM
Hehe. Perhaps the Bush administration should be welcomed back among the many nations of this world who prefer to work together rather than issuing ill-fated ultimatums... well, maybe not yet.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:58 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:54 AM
I knew all of these plans would screw up. They've screwed up big time.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:50 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Back to the pragmatism of the elder Bush admin, then.

Pity he didn't listen to Poppy in the first place.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 03:13 PM   #6
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Pity he didn't listen to Poppy in the first place.


if DC gossip is to be believed, the two don't speak anymore. the elder views the younger as having been willingly duped by the more fascistic elements of the Republican Party, the elements that he as a northeasterner had always resisted.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 03:37 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:54 AM
Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/09/cov....tm/index.html

[/q]



now, i would never say "i told you so" ... but i knew it.
You knew that Time Magazine would write such an article?


The fact is, as Colin Powell has stated, Bush Foreign Policy since 9/11 is not anything revolutionary and is simply a restatement of US Foreign Policy consistent with US Foreign Policy since World War II.

While the Iraq war has strained the popularity of Bush's Presidency, it has been very successful in achieving its objectives those being, the removal of Saddam's regime from power, dismantling any of the regimes WMD weapons or WMD related programs thus insuring that key UN Security Council Resolutions vital to the security of the region and the world are enforced, helping set up a new democratic government to replace the brutal and threatening dictatorship of Saddam. These objectives have been accomplished. The only thing that remains is the rebuilding of the Iraqi military and improvement of the internal security situation for the country.

The United States problem with North Korea is no different than it was in 1994 or 1998. North Korea developed its first two Nuclear Weapons in 1994 and had a successful launch of an ICBM back in 1998. Aside from calling North Korea a member of the Axis of Evil, there is little the Bush administration has done differently in response to North Korea's games over the past 5 years. So to claim that there was a revolutionary policy in place for North Korea and that the President has reversed it is absurd.


A Key element of Clinton's Foreign Policy was spreading democracy around the world. This is simply not a new or revolutionary policy. The United States has always had strong elements of pre-emption in its Foreign Policy since World War II. From the 1950s to the mid-1990s, the United States kept B-52's in the air, 24 hours a day; 365 days a year, armed with nuclear weapons ready to strike any target on the planet it deemed necessary to destroy to insure security.

The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would wait on other countries to help act when its security was threatened. The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would not act unilaterally to protect its security. The United States always tried to mobilize support for its policies when it could, and the Bush administration has been no different in this regard, although some think the absense of France and Germany from Iraq makes Bush a unilateralist.


Yes, there are problems with in Israel, name a year since Israel became a country in 1948 when there has not been a problem.

Bush's foreign policy over the past 6 years is not the revolutionary new policy many in the media claim it to be. It is simply a restatement of elements that have been apart of US Foreign Policy since the end of World War II. So there has been no significant change recently really. The "Bush Doctrine" that TIME describes never existed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 04:06 PM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:54 AM
Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
So there has been no significant change recently really. The "Bush Doctrine" that TIME describes never existed.



the members of the administration don't seem to share the view you say they hold of their own policy ...


[q]"The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
[/q]



and more background:

[q]The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 04:29 PM   #9
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 06:54 AM
Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
...
The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad.
I'm only surprised it's taken this long for many people to come to these conclusions. He manipulated the voting public into following him by using fear tactics, presenting himself as an avuncular protector, without whom the nation would be doomed. This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but I strongly feel that's the crux of it.

As for the administration, that's the best (worst?) example of group-think I've ever seen. A bunch of yes-men and women, all of them reinforcing the others' beliefs, no one to question, or to bring up different perspectives.

Am I surprised? Not at all. Am I a big enough person to let the Told You So train pass by without hopping on? Nope.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 05:10 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 06:54 AM
Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The United States problem with North Korea is no different than it was in 1994 or 1998. North Korea developed its first two Nuclear Weapons in 1994 and had a successful launch of an ICBM back in 1998. Aside from calling North Korea a member of the Axis of Evil, there is little the Bush administration has done differently in response to North Korea's games over the past 5 years. So to claim that there was a revolutionary policy in place for North Korea and that the President has reversed it is absurd.
You bet.

I disagree with the premise of the Time article. Is the concept of pre-emption a failure because it hasn't been applied in every geopolitical situation? It reminds me of a baseball pitcher with the reputation of a blazing fastball, but then strikes out a batter with a 78 mph changeup. Would Time say the pitcher is getting weak because he didn't throw the same fastball every time?
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 07-10-2006, 05:29 PM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
I disagree with the premise of the Time article. Is the concept of pre-emption a failure because it hasn't been applied in every geopolitical situation?


it's considered a failure because Iraq is a failure on many, many levels, and Iraq was supposed to be the first example of the Bush Doctrine in action, with Iran and NoKo on standby with the understanding that they were next.

the policy has not done what Bush and Co. intended it to be able to do.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 05:39 PM   #12
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it's considered a failure because Iraq is a failure on many, many levels, and Iraq was supposed to be the first example of the Bush Doctrine in action, with Iran and NoKo on standby with the understanding that they were next.

the policy has not done what Bush and Co. intended it to be able to do.
Exactly, why some can't see that is beyond me...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-10-2006, 05:51 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





the members of the administration don't seem to share the view you say they hold of their own policy ...


[q]"The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
[/q]



and more background:

[q]The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

[/q]
Perhaps you forget that Colin Powell is on record as saying that Bush Foreign Policy is simply a restatement of elements that have been present in US Foreign Policy for decades. I'll take Colin Powell's stated view as well as my own any day over some unnamed sources who happen to be apart of the administration.

People at TIME magazine seem to have a very limited and narrow understanding of US Foreign Policy during the Cold War.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 06:00 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it's considered a failure because Iraq is a failure on many, many levels, and Iraq was supposed to be the first example of the Bush Doctrine in action, with Iran and NoKo on standby with the understanding that they were next.

the policy has not done what Bush and Co. intended it to be able to do.
Removed Saddam's regime, enforced UN Security Council Resolutions, and brought Democracy to Iraq. Rebuild the Iraqi military and improve the internal security situation and the job is complete. There was never any intention on the part of the administration to invade North Korea or invade Iran. An invasion of Iraq has always been a possiblity since 1991, and any study of the time period from 1991 through 2003 will show that. The military spent most of its time preparing for task involved with and operation that would expend 3 times as much fuel and ammo as Desert Storm in 1991 did with the long march from Kuwait all the way to Baghdad.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 06:05 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Exactly, why some can't see that is beyond me...
Its clear that some on the left want Iraq to be a failure because of the political fortunes it will give them. But any objective study of such an operation will show that it is not a failure, unless you believe such an operation could be completed in under two years with no casualties as many on the left are claiming could have been done, but Bush somehow failed.

Key points, Saddam regime removed, UN Security Council resolutions in regards to WMD enforced, a new Democratic government is in place in Iraq. All of that in under 3 years. The rebuilding of the Iraqi military and the improvement of the internal security environment will complete the process.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com