What's Up, Doctrine?

It’s been pointed out that Sarah Palin sounded a bit confused and incoherent during a recent interview when she was asked to comment on the “Bush Doctrine”. Well, I would have been blindsided by this question as well, since, up to the point of that interview, no one had ever heard of a “Bush Doctrine” – in other words, the term was apparently made up just for that interview, and in order to confuse Gov. Palin. However, rather than dwelling on the past, let’s concede that now that this term, or concept, is in play as part of the election proceedings, it ought to be defined so that it can become a handy talking point for candidates of either party.

But first let’s look at the very first foreign policy “doctrine” ever formulated by an American president, namely that of James Monroe. His doctrine can be defined as “opposition to extension of European control or influence in the Western Hemisphere”. Implied in this doctrine was our reciprocal determination to not interfere in European affairs; in other words, it was a quid pro quo idea, and an early expression of hegemony, AKA "dividing up the turf". One consequence was our opposition to the establishment of new colonies in North America by European powers, and the doctrine also supported the recently-achieved independence of numerous Latin American nations. It was, in short, a hemisphere-based doctrine, which essentially divided up the world between areas of our direct interest combined with areas consisting of newly-independent countries whose independence we supported; and the rest of the world, i.e. Europe (and, implied, Asia and Africa). The concept was later extended to the establishment of military and naval installations, regardless of the formal status of the countries where they were located. (This concept came into play, of course, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.)

Now let’s have a look at the “Bush Doctrine”, at least as defined by Wikipedia with annotations (in brackets) by moi:

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various [that’s for sure] related [to what?] foreign policy principles [now why abuse that perfectly good term?] of United States president [right – keep saying that and it might come true some day] George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. [Actually, they were "created" long before 9-11, which was just used as an excuse to implement them.] The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan [but not Saudi Arabia, note]."

[OK – so right away, you have this supposed right to attack any country that harbors terrorists. Problem is, we’re the ones who define “terrorist”. Pretty handy, isn’t it?]

[Please note that, based on usage by the current administration, a "terrorist" is anyone who fights in an "unconventional war" -- which means, basically, that they don't wear uniforms and march in formation. So by this criterion, the "embattled farmers" who fought at Concord Bridge were terrorists.]

"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes [even “democracies”?] that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy [so-called] around the world, especially in the Middle East [where democracy is way more important than it is in, say, Africa or Asia], as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism [same objection – we define what “terrorism” is], and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way." [That means without asking the U.N., which is itself not a bad principle.]

[But what it adds up to – if you combine these two major elements – is that we assert the right to invade any country at any time in order to prevent even the remote possibility that they might, some day, be in a position of harboring or giving aid to terrorist groups, by which we mean – as usual – “terrorist” as defined by us. So if England, for example, is less than diligent in rooting “terrorist” groups out of its vast tracts of public housing, we should have the right to invade England in order to deal with that fact.]

[And of course, let’s not neglect the core element of this doctrine, which the Wikipedia article mysteriously fails to mention, namely that all of the above considerations, even assuming they are occasionally sincerely held, take very much of a back seat to Job One, which is the “defense” of Israel at all costs. In fact, for each of the above points, if given a choice between it and Israel, Israel will always come out on top.]

And here’s the quote that gets Sarah Palin off the hook (or ought to): “These principles are sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine although the term is often used to describe other elements of Bush policy and is not universally recognized as the single concept.” Yeah – one kind of gets the feeling that the real doctrine is that we can go anywhere we want at any time, and kill anyone we want to, and destroy the infrastructure and economy and political stability of any country, and whadda you gonna do about it, pal? The sad thing is, it appears that Palin has signed onto this idea and is all ready to carry it forward in whatever capacity she can. Of course, she has to get around John McCain first, and… no wait, he’s in full agreement with the idea himself. So when the Democrats talk about “four more years of the same”, what they should really be saying is, “four more years of the same, with turbochargers and earlaps”.