Bush doctrine has "run up against reality" and can't be sustained

[dajoki]

posted August 29, 2006 at 12:30 p.m.
Has the Bush doctrine failed?
Analysts say conflicts in the Middle East have halted aggressive US policy, and may hint at end of West's military superiority.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0829/dailyUpdate.html

<<snip>>

Four years later, the San Francisco Chronicle reports in a news analysis piece that many analysts "across the political spectrum" believe the doctrine has failed — rendered obsolete by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States may find it hard, if not impossible, the analysts say, to again try in the near future to topple a hostile regime. Its military is stretched, its moral standing diminished. Even democracy itself is tarnished, often equated now with car bombs and chaos, rather than peace and prosperity.

"The kind of thing people in the administration prided themselves in understanding, namely the use of power, was actually the very thing they proved not to be able to use effectively," said David Holloway of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, which conducts research and training on issues of international security.

<<snip>>

"We're losing" in Iraq, said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supported the war. "The country is sliding into civil war, and the president doesn't seem to be doing very much about it. That has tremendous negative repercussions throughout the region and indeed the world, because it's really a black eye for the United States and a blow to democracy advocates around the region."

In a piece for the July-August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Phllip H. Gordon, a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, writes that while the administration's foreign policy rhetoric hasn't changed, its actual policies have. The Bush doctrine, he writes, has "run up against reality" and can't be sustained. And the return to a more realistic foreign policy, he says, should be "locked in."

[NMDemDist2]

1. K & N n/t

[rodeodance]

2. good realist article , yet the WH is obvious denial and now Rummy is

on the warpath!

[texpatriot2004]

3. * makes his reality up as he goes along and he's the only one

living there.

[donco6]

4. It wouldn't be the first time Afghanistan proved to be . . .

the stumbling block that brought down a superpower.

[raccoon]

8. "The graveyard of empires." nt

[Drum]

5. Kick n Rec

and echoing the fine sentiments of the above replies!
:thumbsup:

[chefgirl]

6. Has the Bush doctrine REALLY failed?

By most normal peoples' standards, yes, the Bush doctrine has failed miserably, but has it really failed? I'm not so sure about that.

This sentence in that article might seem to bear out my point:
"The country is sliding into civil war, and the president doesn't seem to be doing very much about it."

I strongly believe that this administrations plans are going along swimmingly, according to their standards.
They've accomplished almost everything they had their evil little hearts set on when they stole the White House.

You can bet your last dime that there's a reason why the Republicans are pretending to be oblivious to the civil war that HAS begun in Iraq, and why the President "doesn't seem to be doing very much about it"

I don't trust Republicans as far as I can spit them.

-chef-

[dajoki]

10. I don't trust them either...

but what do you mean that it is going swimmingly for them?

[ninkasi]

16. I think that was a dig at

Ann the hag Coulter. She said on one of the talk shows recently that things were "going swimmingly" in Afghanistan.

[dajoki]

21. Yes I saw that...

It was on Hanutty and she stormed off the set.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hip, hip, hurrah!

This author and his work is referenced in the OP. I went to the original article because it addresses something that is really good for America: give up empire, and you'll be better off in the end by relying on building alliances based on mutual respect and collective interests.

While the author still speaks of maintaining empire or dominance, by different means than the ones used by Bush and the neocons, the reality is that it is the policies pursued by the United States and Israel that give rise to the counterreaction we label as "terrorism." How can we call our opponents terrorists when we are the mother that gave them birth?

Our own liberation from the "burdens" of empire begin with our accepting the premise that we don't know what's best for the world. No nation has a monopoly on wisdom!

No Win

With the failure of the United States and Israel to achieve decisive victories in Iraq and Lebanon, the age of Western military dominance in the Middle East appears to be ending. It's time for a new strategy.

By Andrew J. Bacevich | August 27, 2006

EVER SINCE BRITAIN AND FRANCE overthrew Ottoman rule in World War I to create the modern Middle East, Western nations have relied on unquestioned military superiority to secure their position in the region. Between the world wars, European imperialists ruthlessly employed firepower to crush nationalist uprisings. After World War II, as the United States supplanted Europe, American military power underwrote the oil-for-protection bargain forged with Saudi Arabia and eventually made Washington the ultimate guarantor of regional stability. When Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had the temerity to challenge American primacy in 1990, the outcome served only to affirm US military preeminence.

<snip>

Today the tables are turning. Despite a massive American and Israeli technological edge, including nuclear arsenals, mounting evidence suggests that the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end. Muslim radicals have evolved an Islamist way of war that is as complex as it is cunning. As a consequence, in and around the Persian Gulf the military balance is shifting. The failures suffered by the United States in Iraq and by Israel in southern Lebanon may well signify a turning point in modern military history, comparable in significance to the development of blitzkrieg in the 1930s or of the atomic bomb a decade later. Although the full implications of this shift are not clear, they promise to be huge, calling into question basic strategic assumptions that have held sway in the United States and Israel.

<snip>

For both the United States and Israel, the real issue is not how to defeat the Islamist way of war but how to circumvent it, rendering it irrelevant. This implies resetting the terms of the competition.

Some argue that the way to accomplish this is through escalation, enlarging and recasting the fight in hope of making it ``our kind of war." Here lies the appeal of attacking Iran. As advocated by some American and Israeli hawks, such a confrontation would play to our strengths and negate the enemy's. High-tech air forces with precision munitions would render resistance of the sort encountered in southern Lebanon or Iraq's Anbar Province moot. A quick win over Tehran would restore both the perception and the reality of Western military dominance and pay large political dividends.

That such expectations reflect the same sort of naÔve optimism heard prior to the US invasion of Iraq goes without saying. In 2003 the hawks predicted that the march to Baghdad would be a cakewalk; in 2006, they make similar predictions regarding a war with Iran.

A second approach to circumventing the Islamist resistance, premised on a more sober appreciation of war's efficacy, begins with admitting the possibility that the problem posed by radical Islamists has no military solution.

Over the past five years, the quasi-permanent ``war on terror," as conceived by the Bush administration and generally endorsed by the government of Israel, has enjoyed a fair trial. During that period, it has bred widespread anti-Americanism, generated sympathy for the Islamist cause, and provided ``the terrorists" with a ready supply of recruits. To continue down this path will only produce more of the same.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/

[annabanana]

9. It doesn't matter, , , we can't stop it

unless we can STOP IT!!

They will merrily go over every cliff they encounter until we can engage the machinery necessary to STOP THEM.

Winning one of the houses of Congress is not just a nice idea, you know.

[grizmaster]

11. Scary how far reaching the consequences of the bush doctrine

will ultimately be. It's going to likely take decades to repair, undo, and make up for the results of bush's actions.

[Supersedeas]

19. quite a legacy that all of us and our children will endure for years

[DemoVet]

12. "Strength beyond challenge"

Oddly enough, this works best when your strength is implied rather than used because it keeps your adversary from knowing your limits, as ours now do. This is why Iran is getting uppity, on nuclear development, in Iraq, and in Lebanon through Hezbollah, why the Taliban and al-Queda are regrouping in Afghanistan, and why North Korea continues to build bombs and test missiles. Why should they worry? They now know it's not possible for us to really stop them. Thanks, Dick/George/Don, you really have made us so much safer.

[Wretched Refuse]

13. Figgin'

BINGO Demovet.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Wretched Refuse!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dajoki]

22. We trained our enemies n/t

[specimenfred1984]

14. All Fascist Doctrines Fail

The pathetic war-mongers are exposing their lost cause by calling everyone else "fascists" now. The whole purpose of the Chimp Doctrine was to steal money and further solidify the fascist hold on America.

We'll see just how successful it is this Nov. when they try to steal everyone's votes again.

[yellowcanine]

15. Max Boot is bailing on Bush? He is one of the true believer neocons.

Stick a fork in Bush because he is finished if guys like Max Boot no longer believe.

"We're losing" in Iraq, said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supported the war. "The country is sliding into civil war, and the president doesn't seem to be doing very much about it. That has tremendous negative repercussions throughout the region and indeed the world, because it's really a black eye for the United States and a blow to democracy advocates around the region."

[tgnyc]

17. Does a bear shit in the woods?

[No Exit]

20. ...And Democrats now have about 20 years of political ads

already made to order for them.

In the future, Democrats will simply insert a clip of * "speaking" into every candidate's campaign TV ad, accompanied by the question, "Do you ever want to return to THAT?"

Our own scare campaign! Thank you, Shrub!