A Clarification of the “Bush Doctrine”
Written by Mike on February 1st, 2005John O’Sullivan writes what I wish I had written myself. Does that ever happen to yall as well? He lays it out perfectly here in NRO. There is a middle path between neo-realism and what I like to call uber-realism. At times the Bush Doctrine seems naive, but as we watch Iraq slowly, and slightly bloodily transform itself into a free society there are some good ideas to be found within this new way of doing things.
1
PM
I also believe that Bush has united the idealist and realist foreign policy schools. He is using the idealist aspiration for democracy as a tool by which to accomplish the realist objective of achieving national security. I think O’ Sullivan still misunderstands one part of the Bush Doctrine: President Bush argued - quite remarkably - that in the long run totalitarian states (such as Saudi Arabia) are never in the best interest of American national security in this war on terror. Sure, in the Cold War, right wing dictatorships could act as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. The Reagan Rollback Doctrine often manifested itself in such ways. Indeed, Ambassador Kirkpatrick once labled such dictatorial governments in Chile as “moderately repressive regimes.” However, in trying to defeat terrorism, fundamentalist states ARE the problem; they are the real threat. You cannot defeat terrorism without defeating their totalitarian, Islamist sponsors. They can never really be long term allies, simply because the very mechanics of a totalitarian state lead to the indoctrination of its people into the ideology that breeds and sustains terrorism. Case in point: Saudi Arabia and its funding of Wahabbi religious schools across the Arab world. Totalitarian governments create the conditions that lead to the perpetuation of the collective hatreds and resentments that inspire young Arab men to become terrorists, thus they are never in the best interest of American national security. Free societies are the only way to defeat terrorism at its core. As President Bush outlined in his inaugural, this means the United States has a vested interest in seeing the gradual, democratic transformation of the Middle East. No doubt military force may be necessary at times, but the hope is that eventually Arabs will take matters into their own hands. We hope they will not need American soldiers to unleash the “shackles on democracy” as was needed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iranians, Syrians, et al. have seen democracy in action, and perhaps now they will have the courage to stand up and fight for their own freedom, without the full-fledged support of the American military.
Time will only tell.
10
AM
I must say that I was surprised to find this web page, but - - - Good Job.
15
AM
Please check some relevant pages about…
18
AM
Thank you for opening a wonderfully new sight..I wish you the best of luck with your new venture.
19
AM
%-) genuinely interested by this website
6
PM
http://xxx.prisonrapelife.com/pgsfaodr/ europefranticlooking
7
PM
http://card_games.neasoc.org blindfoldsuggesttrace
10
PM
http://bestcolleges.ivtcscs.org passageretrospectswimsuit
14
AM
http://debt.finances-inco.com/debt-job-public/ dayemeraldinadvertently