My G+ Profile
« GovTech Picks Up My Story | Main | A Blizzard of Unhappy Customers »
The Bush Doctrine
David Gergen on CNN, commenting on Bush’s inaugural, says that its a surprise that Bush’s strategy is “far more ambitious than we ever imagined. His strategy is not simply going after Iraq and going after Sadam. Nor is it simply going after Al Queda. It is rather to expand liberty across much of the world.” This is not news to me. I’ve understood that that was Bush’s strategy for a long time. What’s sad is that it probably is news to many. This is the Bush Doctrine and if he can pull it off will define his Presidency. That’s why it was upfront in the speech. The biggest failure of Bush’s team in the first term was to clarify this doctrine and make it part of the national debate.
I’m hopeful that this speech marks a much needed change and that we’ll see this discussed, and debated. For any doctrine to be successful it has to become part of the national consciousness in a way that ensures that it lives past its founder. Truman’s Doctrine of containment in the face of communism, for example, lasted for 40 years. That’s what Bush and his team have to get right if they want to truly change national and global rule sets.
Posted by windley on January 20, 2005 10:51 AM
Comment from steven vore at January 20, 2005 1:58 PM
Phil, have you read (and do you agree with) The Pentagon's New Map, by Barnett?
www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Comment from Phil Windley at January 20, 2005 4:36 PM
Yes, I have and think that Barnett is right on. Interestingly, if you know Barnett, listening to Bush's speech is a very interesting experience. I almost expected to hear him say "disconnectedness defines danger" a few times.
Comment from steven vore at January 20, 2005 4:49 PM
Given that you used "change national and global rule sets," I thought you might have. I had to work today but will be checking out c-span's replays when I get a chance.
There sure is a lot of hand-wringing going on about it in blogville today. I'm not 100% sure I agree with everything Barnett says, but it seems to make a lot of sense. I'm skeptical - though hopeful - that the President and his staff are following that 'plan' and not just 'empire building' as so many fear/suspect/claim.
Comment from Phil Windley at January 20, 2005 5:47 PM
Well, no one is 100% correct, but I find that Barnett's stuff gives me a framework within which I'm comfortable putting events into context. When a framework explains so many things so well, you have to respect it. I have also been heavily influenced by Philip Bobbit's Shield of Achilles.
Comment from Duncan Lamb at January 21, 2005 9:16 AM
Great post. Colin Powell has alluded to this during the whole first time.
In reality though it's not new... even Clinton adopted this doctrine and used all it's vocabulary. Fukuyama's the source, with The End of History and the Last Man. (Hope you've read that). The State depoartment adopted that philosophy for the last 15 years - and gently pushed South America, Asia, and the ex-Soviet block towards Democracy since.
The greatest prediction of Fukuyama's philosophy has borne out - there has never been a war between two mature democracies, and due to their nature, there won't be. The formula is easy: instill liberal democracy in a country, and the world does not have to worry about that country becoming a rougue state again. That message continually pops up in all of our foreign policy speeches (and have for a long time). It's a good policy I think, history in the last 15 years has definitely shown it can work surprisigly well.