You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
The Bush Doctrine
2004-02-22
This is a good primer on foreign policy, from the Bush perspective. Lots of links. Excerpt
"The Bush Doctrine defines the enemy threat as a horrible combination of “radicalism and technology” that is not vulnerable to Cold War concepts of deterrence and containment. That is, terrorist groups and rogue states, who are unrestrained by the prospect of mutually assured destruction, create a new threat that demands an unprecedented response. To wait until they attack, as we might have historically preferred, is a far greater risk then can be justified. As President Bush warned at West Point, “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” The basic outlines of the Bush Doctrine are:
  1. the United States will combat terror wherever it can be found using all means at its disposal including preemptive force;

  2. relationships around the world will be defined in terms of countries that support the war on terrorism and those that do not; and

  3. rogue nations and/or terrorist organizations cannot be allowed to acquire and/or threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
The key sentence in the National Security Strategy for many critics has been, “To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” Critics of the doctrine argue that it appears to make first strikes the rule rather than the exception and ignores Teddy Roosevelt’s caution to “speak softly and carry a big stick” and instead, substitutes a policy of carrying a big stick with a loud voice."
Posted by:tipper

#9  Jennie, I'm with you on the 72 oly's. The world should have put the snuff to them then.

Anon. Let's hope.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-22 11:52:22 PM  

#8  For those who don't know, insiders are reporting that a "mini-war" is about to be launched against terrorists in the Sunni Triangle. The city of Fallujah will be attacked by at least two brigades, with the purpose of liquidating the terrorists, piecemeal. Pockets of terror will be heavily bombed. The plan appears to involve pushing the terrorists into a single sector, where fed-up locals will collaborate with US forces. I think, and pray, that the plan will work.

Terrorists like to know that their work will be duly noted. They are not going to set off Road-Siders, under combat circumstances where they will be rolled over a few seconds later. Cut-and-run means: cut-and-die.
Posted by: Anonymous   2004-2-22 10:50:23 PM  

#7  Cheddarhead, agreed, but when it really started was the Black September massacre of the Israeli atheletes at the 1972 Olympics, masterminded by Arafat and friends.
Yasser is truly the Father of modern Islamist Terrorism.
(And, yes, I'm very worried about this summer's Olympics in Athens.)
Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro   2004-2-22 7:33:29 PM  

#6  Cheddarhead---Even before 1979, Ayatolla Khomeni had been living in France with no objections from the government. So France may have not been a shootin' enemy, but they have consistantly been on the side of people like Khomeini, Sammy, and others. And they complain about us supporting dictatorships! (And they get a pass...whatcha think, Kandidate Kerry?)

Bush and Rummy call them as they see them, and everyone has a heart murmer....jeeze louise!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-2-22 4:26:42 PM  

#5  Hell, many can't seem to get it through their minds that we're at war, period. And many of those who do, think it started on 9/11.

I would dispute your figure of 25 years, though; myself, I count the beginning as being back in the late sixties, when radical Arabs first began organizing (first around socialist ideology, then later around Islamism) in the aftermath of the 1967 Mideast War.

The bottom line is, these people have been at war with us for at least a third of a century- it's just that we didn't pay them anything more than passing attention until 9/11.

At least George Bush is paying attention now; the Democrats, of course, are not: they'd rather have a war against Republicans than a war against Islamic totalitarians who aim to kill us all or convert us to their vile "faith".
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-2-22 10:33:00 AM  

#4  What many poeple in this country can't seem to get their minds around is that we have been in a war for 25 years. This war started on the day in 1979 that the Ayatolla Cockamamie got of the plane in Tehran.
Posted by: Cheddarhead   2004-2-22 10:06:57 AM  

#3  Again.. speaking of the Truman Doctrine can you believe it... George Kennan turned 100 last week.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-2-22 10:02:31 AM  

#2  this is a truly historic time - there were only two other docturines that have carried us for 200 years. Monroe and Truman doctrines in the near future you will need to add to this (and I am sure regardless of this election), Bush doctrine.
Posted by: Dan   2004-2-22 9:56:07 AM  

#1  The entire article provides a good overview of historical, moral, legal and political considerations. A few more sentences, from the conclusion:

For more than a decade prior to its announcement, there were many signs of shadowy enemies who were committing acts of war against us, for which we had no clearly stated policy by which we could respond. The Bush Doctrine attempts to close this strategic vulnerability.... The domestic political process, with all its messy complications, is the agent by which the public's understanding and support will be shaped and measured. The Bush Doctrine is not a radical departure, as some would argue.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-2-22 9:42:19 AM  

00:00