What is "The Bush Doctrine"?

[Khairan]

It seems that the guy who tried to take Sarah Palin to task on "the Bush Doctrine" didn't know what it was himself -- says the man who coined the phrase.


Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

washingtonpost.com

[sixpakistan]

Khairan said

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

What Krauthammer is referring to is really the "Wilsonian ideal," revived by Bush. A lot of pundits have continued to refer to the Bush Doctrine as a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare.

Gibson is probably aware of the other definitions. But he specifically said "the Bush doctrine, enunciated, September 2002." Even if Gibson isn't aware of it, he isn't a "heartbeat away from the presidency."

Also, Sarah Palin definitely tried to act like she knew what she was talking about. She didn't come out and say "I don't know."

Krauthammer is a neocon schmuck. This is an attempt to excuse Sarah Palin's ignorance by attacking Charles Gibson, which is dumb.

[oFoShOuKnO]

Khairan your turning into a GOP apologist!?

NOOOOOO

[sumi]

good points, sixpak.

[Jaysh]

We must give credit where credit is due. She did a masterful job...for a high school student.

[MrZ]

I believe that it's about energy like such as, uh, Pakistan, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as.

[sumi]

MuslimZ said

I believe that it's about education like such as, uh, Pakistan, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as.

no. its about ENERGY.

[Khairan]

oFoShOuKnO said

Khairan your turning into a GOP apologist!?

NOOOOOO

It's not that. But I am a stickler for people using reasonable arguments. So far, I think the liberal camp has been going after Palin for nonsense because they can't come up with anything better. This whole "Bush doctrine" thing is more of the same -- I disagree with sixpak's comment that the entire article is merely an attempt to excuse Palin. I think Krauthammer is on the money in saying that Gibson was looking for a "gotcha" moment and thought he found one, and that Obama supporters have pounced on it as well.

However, and mark this -- one of the reasons Democrats have consistently failed to win elections (except for the last Congressional election) for the past decade or so is that much of the country is disenfranchised from the "liberal" values Democrats (or the liberals who support them) espouse. We can see it plainly in the types of scorn that people are showering upon Palin -- she's small town (much of America is), she went to a no-name university (so does most of the country), she's a "hockey mom," she's a religious fanatic, so on and so forth.

We can see it in the way Obama, who is a media darling and has had an absolutely commanding presence in national polls throughout the year, is still only neck and neck with McCain -- a candidate who is looked at with suspicion by his own party.

Ultimately, I think with respect to Sarah Palin people have been choosing the absolute wrong tack with which to critique her. They are trying to "smear" her by belittling elements of her character that she shares with a good portion of this country -- elements which explain precisely why she is a popular pick and precisely why I think this tack is going to backfire in a big way for the Obama supporters if they keep it up.

Can one criticize Sarah Palin for not knowing "the Bush doctrine"? Perhaps, but rather than saying "haha she didn't know what it was" (which, as this article points out, is the wrong criticism for the wrong reasons), it is better to say: "She should have asked which parts of the doctrine Gibson was referring to, she should have explained why his question was vague, she might have offered some of her own thoughts on foreign policy as part of her response while asking him to clarify exactly what he meant."

However, and this is the bottom line: I don't think the Democratic camp is doing itself any favours by trying to convince the country that it needs to look down upon and deride a woman who much of the American public probably identifies with. They are better off focusing on ideological and policy issues, and while some of that HAS come out of the Gibson interview, it's unfortunate that non-issues like the so-called Bush doctrine "gaffe" receive the focus.


***



I will additionally reiterate that while I don't really consider myself loyal to any party (I lost any desire to support "the Democrats" as an entity after their sick response to the Summer War in Lebanon) I think Barack Obama and his economic policies will be bad for this country, and have noted so elsewhere. I'm not thrilled about either candidate or either party, but I do like Sarah Palin and what I've seen of her so far. I don't know if I like her enough to want her to run this country, but it hardly matters now. If I had my way, though, it would be Ron Paul running on the Republican ticket -- too bad that won't ever happen.

[sixpakistan]

Khairan said

It's not that. But I am a stickler for people using reasonable arguments. So far, I think the liberal camp has been going after Palin for nonsense because they can't come up with anything better. This whole "Bush doctrine" thing is more of the same -- I disagree with sixpak's comment that the entire article is merely an attempt to excuse Palin. I think Krauthammer is on the money in saying that Gibson was looking for a "gotcha" moment and thought he found one, and that Obama supporters have pounced on it as well.

What's the basis for thinking that he was looking for a "gotcha?" And even if he was looking for a "gotcha" .. so what? The point is that Palin was completely lost on the point of the Bush doctrine, even when Gibson specified which definition he was referring to. That's not a reasonable argument? Aside from that, she appeared flustered, inarticulate, and frankly stupid throughout most of the interview.

Contrast it with Obama's appearance on O'Reilly, where O'Reilly was blatantly rude, argumentative, interrupted Obama, etc, and Obama took it all in stride and handled it extremely well. I haven't really been impressed with Barack Obama up until this point, but even haters have to admire the way he handled the appearance on O'Reilly. The fact that he even had the guts to do it speaks volumes. Regardless of your perspective on the man's views, one has to acknowledge that he is clearly "presidential material." Can you imagine how bad someone like Palin - who talks a lot about 'courage' and 'not blinking' - would've fallen apart under the same sort of questioning? Imagine the conniption neocon stooges would go into if Sarah Palin OR John McCain were treated like that by one of the members of the so-called "liberal media."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not drinking Kool-Aid here - I most likely won't vote in this election. I think voting in this election is a waste of time, and the only way I would've bothered is if Ron Paul had been on the Republican ticket. Which, like you pointed out, is never going to happen.

BTW, what specifically do you object to about Obama's economic policies? And what do you like about Sarah Palin? In terms of her stance on specific issues - not the usual cliches about her being a hockey mom, from the middle of nowhere, breath of fresh air, etc etc. We've only seen one instance of the woman actually speaking in her own words - and even then, she was really only picking which talking points/canned responses to use -and she completely bombed. What is there to like about her?

Also, how can you say you want to vote for Ron Paul.. but that you're willing to vote for McCain? That's like saying "I want to vote for McCain, but I'll settle for Hillary Clinton."

[Khairan]

Here is a link which offers a counterpoint to the Krauthammer article, and falls much more along the lines of valid (as opposed to sensationalist) criticism:

The Palin interview

12 Sep 2008 09:01 am
It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.

Not the mundane job of vice president, of course, which many people could handle. Rather the job of potential Commander in Chief and most powerful individual on earth.

The spelling-out is lengthy, but I've hidden most of it below the jump.

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

Two details in Charles Gibson's posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable -- as if a sports host asked about Favre's chances and you weren't sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, "Oh, if we're talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002...." There was no such flash of recognition.

The other was Gibson's own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there's no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like "shooting in self-defense.") The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.

Gibson used the word "preemptively" -- but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point ("Well, preemption was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba"), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the "preventive war" point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn't get in the way of his real intent.

Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed -- an endorsement of "preemptive" action -- was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq.

How could she not know this? For the same reason I don't know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.

A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:

1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"

That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.

We don't know for sure about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.


James Fallows (September 12, 2008) - The Palin interview (Politics)

[Khairan]

sixpakistan said

BTW, what specifically do you object to about Obama's economic policies?

I think Obama is very radical in terms of his overall approach to government and its role vis a vis society. I think he's a socialist and I suspect he will be very heavy-handed with respect to government "programs" to do things for people -- something I in general don't support. I think of myself as a conservative in the traditional sense: I want the federal government small and out of my way, I would prefer states to have more autonomy over how they legislate as I don't think people in Montana should decide how people in California live, and vice versa. I abhor his support for late-term abortions. Also, while I agree with you that he is charismatic and impressive, I can't help but feel that the media has really hyped him up far beyond his own accomplishments as a politician. I have no reason to think he would be a good president at this point in his career, certainly no MORE so than Palin, if we are speaking strictly in terms of actual "experience."

sixpakistan said

And what do you like about Sarah Palin?

I like the fact that she was willing to buck her own party, for one thing. I think she is smart, and I don't doubt she's a capable leader (though I don't know if she's presidential material) because she's gone pretty far in a relatively short period of time (mayor of a tiny town to governor of her state while running against an incumbent from her own party and a former governor from the opposing party). I like the fact that she supports states' rights and does not (from what she says) seek to impose her religious agenda on the country. For instance, though she supports abstinence-only sex-ed in schools (which is weird) she hasn't aggressively pushed to put these programs in place everywhere even as Governor. She supports teaching Creationism alongside evolution in science class (which is absurd if only because Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific one), but she does not claim it to be on the national agenda for her. I respect that.

Overall, though, at this point my judgement on her is reserved. I am curious to see how she stands up to Biden in the debates, and I think we'll know a lot more about what she's made of then.

sixpakistan said

Also, how can you say you want to vote for Ron Paul.. but that you're willing to vote for McCain? That's like saying "I want to vote for McCain, but I'll settle for Hillary Clinton."

At this point, I'm not sure I WILL vote for McCain. I know I won't be voting for Obama -- but as you said, McCain is not the kind of president, and his party is not the kind of party, I really want to see in office. However, politics aside I do think John McCain is an honourable man. He's been in politics a long time and there is very little by way of scandal that is associated with him (unlike so many other politicians -- even Obama himself).

Ultimately, I want a president who is committed to retooling America's foreign policy and reducing the power of the federal government, and one who is not interested in federally mandated social agendas (be it a liberal, socialist one or a conservative Christian one) on our country. I don't think we have that in this election, but from what we've seen so far I think McCain-Palin is the closest we're going to come to that. I'm waiting to see if the remainder of the election season will convince one way or the other whether it is "close enough."

[sumi]

i don't see anything wrong with a little bit of socialism.

besides, the wealthy suck. you can't expect to make 50 million and pay taxes like you make 50K.

[sixpakistan]

Khairan said

I think Obama is very radical in terms of his overall approach to government and its role vis a vis society. I think he's a socialist and I suspect he will be very heavy-handed with respect to government "programs" to do things for people -- something I in general don't support.

Can you cite any examples of this? Going by "Audacity of Hope" - which admittedly, reads very much like it was written for political purposes - he repudiates a lot of socialist ideals, including the idea of socialist healthcare. I think he probably sees government as playing a role in helping people moreso than say, Newt Gingrich (for instance) does, but he's radically different from the liberal "old guard" in terms of his approach to government.

Khairan said

I think of myself as a conservative in the traditional sense: I want the federal government small and out of my way,

By that criteria, Barack Obama is an exponentially better choice than John McCain. :P

Khairan said

I would prefer states to have more autonomy over how they legislate as I don't think people in Montana should decide how people in California live, and vice versa. I abhor his support for late-term abortions.

I agree with you completely on both counts. To clarify though, Barack Obama does not support late term or partial birth abortions, except in cases where the mother's life is endangered. I disagree with his pro-choice stance in general, though.

Khairan said

Also, while I agree with you that he is charismatic and impressive, I can't help but feel that the media has really hyped him up far beyond his own accomplishments as a politician.

I have no reason to think he would be a good president at this point in his career, certainly no MORE so than Palin, if we are speaking strictly in terms of actual "experience."

Obama's been a senator at a national level for 4 years. Palin's only real experience is being a governor of a state with < 1 million people for less than 2 years. Prior to that, she was a mayor of a town of 7000 people. Obama had many times that # of constituents as a state senator since 1996.

You really think that the way Obama handled O'Reilly, vs the way Palin handled a comparatively very mild Gibson, doesn't betray something about how ready either one of them are to be a president?

Khairan said

I like the fact that she was willing to buck her own party, for one thing.

How exactly did she 'buck' her own party?

Khairan said

I think she is smart, and I don't doubt she's a capable leader (though I don't know if she's presidential material)

Based on what?

Khairan said

because she's gone pretty far in a relatively short period of time
(mayor of a tiny town to governor of her state while running against an incumbent from her own party and a former governor from the opposing party).

So the criticism of Obama is a plus factor for Palin? Obama went from state senator to federal senator to Democratic presidential nominee in less time than Sarah Palin went from mayor of Wasilla to governor of Alaska. To be one of two senators from a state like Illinois is arguably much more difficult to achieve than becoming governor of Alaska. To be the Democratic presidential nominee is obviously another level entirely, especially when he had to contend with someone with the last name "Clinton" in the primary.

Khairan said

I like the fact that she supports states' rights and does not (from what she says) seek to impose her religious agenda on the country. For instance, though she supports abstinence-only sex-ed in schools (which is weird) she hasn't aggressively pushed to put these programs in place everywhere even as Governor. She supports teaching Creationism alongside evolution in science class (which is absurd if only because Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific one), but she does not claim it to be on the national agenda for her. I respect that.

.. What exactly has she done as governor of Alaska?

Khairan said

Overall, though, at this point my judgement on her is reserved. I am curious to see how she stands up to Biden in the debates, and I think we'll know a lot more about what she's made of then.

I think most people are curious to see Biden-Palin in the same way most people were curious to see Tyson-Spinks in 1988. Even though it's obvious she'll be coached to hell and back, I know I can't wait.

Khairan said

At this point, I'm not sure I WILL vote for McCain. I know I won't be voting for Obama -- but as you said, McCain is not the kind of president, and his party is not the kind of party, I really want to see in office. However, politics aside I do think John McCain is an honourable man.

I don't think he's an honorable man at all. He's demonstrably sold out his beliefs and co-opted himself in order to gain the approval of the Republican base. The John McCain of 2000 is a very different politician from the John McCain of 2008. Curiously, the "liberal media" hasn't picked up on his flip-flops much.

Khairan said

He's been in politics a long time and there is very little by way of scandal that is associated with him (unlike so many other politicians -- even Obama himself).

Keating Five ring a bell?

Khairan said

Ultimately, I want a president who is committed to retooling America's foreign policy and reducing the power of the federal government, and one who is not interested in federally mandated social agendas

McCain voted for both the Iraq war and the Patriot Act (twice). Doesn't really sound like he's going to be much of a change from Bush in the areas you mention. "McSame" is a bumper sticker moniker that fits.

[MrZ]

Social Democracy ftw.

[Khairan]

sumiyia said

i don't see anything wrong with a little bit of socialism.

besides, the wealthy suck. you can't expect to make 50 million and pay taxes like you make 50K.

No one does. We already have a system in our country where people who make millions pay more in taxes than the average American even earns.

That's not really the point though -- although the taxes suck, my issue with socialism is more on principle. I think it is a system which punishes the successful for their success while at the same time creating severe disincentives for people to push themselves. Why would you work your butt off to make 200k when you're going to end up living like someone who earns 50k anyway?

Further, I detest any system in which the government wants to invest itself deeply in our lives, by taking the money we collectively earn and then deciding for us how best to spend it. Government bureaucracies are notoriously wasteful and inefficient -- government involvement in our personal lives should be minimal at best.

I also think human beings are fundamentally hardwired to respond to reward and punishment. Both science and our own spiritual teachings confirm this. Socialism as a system ignores this drive and foolishly presumes that people will be at their best if we just give them whatever "they" (some body of bureaucrats somewhere) think people need without any thought to these drives or the consequences of ignoring them.

I agree with you that a *bit* is okay, and I would go so far as to say *necessary* for a moral society -- but this can hardly be called socialism.


Social programs I think are important:
-- public education is critical.
-- scholarship programs based on merit and economic need for the poor to afford expensive schools
-- *primary*/preventative healthcare for all legal residents of the u.s.
-- guaranteed legal representation in civil trials

Things that are to be avoided:
-- Welfare (highly abused entitlement system)
-- non-primary healthcare
-- state-run healthcare
-- state-funded education (this should be done on a local level if at all, not on a federal level)