2008
The Bush Doctrine
The most delicious part of the forthcoming Charlie Gibson interview (airs on KOMO in Seattle at 10 pm tonight) is probably going to be this moment, when Palin fumbles a line of persistent questions about the Bush doctrine:
If you want to make fun of Palin (or, say, join the Facebook group “I Have More Foreign Policy Experience Than Sarah Palin,” which I totally recommend), you better know what the Bush doctrine is. The most commonly accepted definition—the one enumerated by Charlie Gibson—is a doctrine of preemptive or, more properly, preventative war.
The key documents laying out the Bush Doctrine are Bush’s June 2002 speech to West Point graduates….
For much of the last century, America’s defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence—the promise of massive retaliation against nations—means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they’re essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they’re prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead—a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.)
… and the September 2002 National Security Strategy:
It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.
* In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States.* Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.
Congratulations! You now know more about U.S. foreign policy than Sarah Palin.
Comments (29)
But she can SEE Russia from parts of the state that she never visits! She should be the fucking Pope!
Posted by Ziggity | September 12, 2008 11:17 AMForget the pope, she should be God's personal assistant. She can see Russia, come on! Why are people so...oh wait, if she can see Russia, does that mean I can cancel my classes when I see the classroom/lecture hall?
Posted by Leslie N. | September 12, 2008 11:21 AMGibson is playing softball. Instead of giving her the definition He could have said "I'm sorry to have to press this but this is important, if you can't tell me now what the Bush doctrine is, then I and America must assume you don't know what the current presidents doctrine is. Again what is the bush doctrine?"
Posted by LMSW | September 12, 2008 11:30 AMWow - Gibson isn't exactly a hard ball interviewer here, and she still looks terrible.
No wonder they've kept her from the press.
By the way - on the View, during McCain's interview, he suggested he and Obama visit the show together. When one of the hosts quickly inserted 'that would be good for the VP candidates as well' McCain IMMEDIATELY deflected, saying 'the electrion is really about the primary candidates.' They just want no chance of her appearing somewhere unscripted.
Posted by bohica | September 12, 2008 11:30 AMPoke your head outside the echo chamber for even just a moment (it might help you understand Obama's recent freefall in the polls). From the perspective of the "average American" (the Walmart, Applebees, American Idol America), Palin absolutely nailed that question. Lost a point or two when Gibson threw out the "blizzard of words" comment, but otherwise, her response was exactly what was needed.
Guess what Sloggers, it doesn't matter that you're smarter than Palin. The average American couldn't even spell "Bush Doctrine", yet these are the people who will be electing your next President.
Hope your smug, pretentious derision will be enough to comfort you during another four years of Republican presidential "leadership"...
Posted by Perfect Answer | September 12, 2008 11:32 AMDid he ask her if the earth is 6000 years old?
I get the whole "not prying into someone's personal religious views" thing, but if Obama had to defend something his pastor said, Palin ought to come clean about her young earth creationist views - which strike even most Christians as unbelievably wacky.
Posted by Mr. X | September 12, 2008 11:32 AMAnd did he call it "The Bush Doctrine" ?
Nope.
Posted by John Bailo | September 12, 2008 11:33 AMoff topic but still about Palin -
Posted by onion | September 12, 2008 11:35 AMIt BOTHERS me that she shows that much leg (in heels no less) as a politician. no matter what you think of Hillary, I think pantsuits, pants, or at least longer skirts are waaaay more appropriate attire for a politician. you don't see the men running around showing that much skin do you?
I'm not against women looking feminine, or pretty, in the political arena. just (especially) in Palin's case (she's got nice legs, dammit, it will make a difference to a certain kind of voter!) it is not appropriate.
The real problem is that most Democratic politicians (including Obama) and voters ENDORSE the notion of preemptive war. They don't care if it violates international law. There's never been a serious debate about it. Which is part of why Palin doesn't know what it is. She doesn't need to.
Posted by Trevor | September 12, 2008 11:37 AM@5--Way to exemplify smug, pretentious derision, yo. Jesus. Oh, and I didn't know you had a direct connection to ALL AVERAGE AMERICANS! Wow. You must be so important.
Posted by Balt-O-Matt | September 12, 2008 11:43 AMWar with Iran? Sure...
War with Russia? Piece of cake...
Let's just show all those pussies who's in charge, and that'll take care of our standing in the world.
Posted by God help us | September 12, 2008 11:43 AMI thought the bush doctrine was Palin's sex ed policy.
Posted by DOUG. | September 12, 2008 11:46 AMIf McCain wins, forget moving to Canada; I'm just going to kill myself.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 12, 2008 11:47 AM@5, testify brother. It drives me crazy the way the progressive left seems to think they can win merely on the basis of better ideas and better governing. Many Americans, probably more than half, don't want to hear nuanced discussions about civil rights and international law, they want to hear "if you fuck with us, we'll bomb the shit out of you", even with the Iraq debacle staring them in the face.
The left calls these people morons, and then threatens to decamp to Canada. But guess what? Those morons are going to keep you out of power if your only answer to terrorist violence is an appeal to law and diplomacy.
Posted by Westside forever | September 12, 2008 11:49 AMAfter McPain croaks, the Palin Doctrine will be all that matters: We will possibly go to war with any nation that we can see from Alaska.
Posted by NapoleonXIV | September 12, 2008 11:49 AMHell! She's got nice legs. Isn't that one of the main reasons she was picked?????? Her selection doesn't have anything to do with experience.
Oohhh and @5:
Posted by Jennifer | September 12, 2008 11:51 AMGuess what? I'm an idependent voter, avid Stranger reader, musician & social worker and... I enjoy "American Idol." Is your head going to explode now?? Pretty please???????
Rumor*: For her final foreign policy briefing, McCain campaign to send Sarah Palin to EPCOT.
Posted by rain | September 12, 2008 11:52 AM*That I just made up.
yesterday evening i asked every woman i talked to if they knew what the Bush Doctrine was, and none of them did.
and Charlie Gibson doesn't know what Hubris means.
Posted by max solomon | September 12, 2008 12:47 PM@10:
Well, if @5 can SEE an "average American" from where they're standing, clearly that is sufficient to make them an expert on what average Americans think, no?
And which of the polls exactly show Obama in "free-fall"? Every poll I've seen come out in the past few days either shows O with a slight lead, or at worst, neck-and-neck with McSame. In other words, the slight post-convention bounce the GOP ticket enjoyed last week has all but disappeared.
Posted by COMTE | September 12, 2008 12:47 PM@5: sometimes being a bitch is all a woman has...
Posted by susan | September 12, 2008 12:50 PM@8,
It's definitely unprofessional. If she were a lawyer, that much leg would get her kicked out of the courtroom.
Posted by keshmeshi | September 12, 2008 1:23 PMMan, even at face-to-face volume, her voice is just indescribably ear piercing. Is it just me? It's really one of the worst things I've heard.
Posted by Dougsf | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM@18 - So I take it then that you'd also have no problem with any of your friends being vice president of the country? Must be an, um, impressive bunch...
Posted by Scary | September 12, 2008 1:56 PMHer fist is out of control!
Posted by ebon | September 12, 2008 1:57 PMShe's a fucking idiot.
Posted by monkey | September 12, 2008 2:04 PMWhat a dumb cunt. She is more suited to being a right-wing talk-radio douchebag than a politician.
Posted by AMB | September 12, 2008 2:41 PM@18: Hell, that's all I need to hear. If most women don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, why should we expect a lady vice president to know?
Do you think those women know that the U.S. Military recently invaded Pakistan and that the Pakistanis don't approve? Do you think Palin does?
Posted by Phil M | September 12, 2008 2:43 PMi..hate..how..she..haltingly...speakes..to you...charlie...how..do you...maintain..a..straight..face?
Posted by douglas | September 12, 2008 3:34 PMI just joined that facebook group because I really do have more foreign policy experience than sarah palin.
wow.
Posted by anna | September 13, 2008 9:54 PMComments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.