Getting the "Bush Doctrine" Wrong
I will confess that, when I saw the YouTube interview last night of Sarah Palin (by Charles Gibson) I was both a bit disappointed -- and like her, was not familiar with the "Bush Doctrine" by that name.
Since then, I've looked around a bit. Vice President Cheney has used the term, almost invariably as "what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine". White House reporters and others have used it.
But our official National Security Strategy, which I had read, doesn't mention it at all.
Interestingly, while Sarah Palin articulated the position of the US reasonably well (considering that Mr. Gibson was obviously looking for a damaging admission) it turns out that Charles Gibson didn't know what (or when) the "Bush Doctrine" was either. That's ironic.
He said (in this YouTube video, about 8 minutes in):"The Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war"
Well, no. It was enunciated September 12, 2001 -- certainly Mr. Gibson remembers the events of the preceding day.The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, says that we have the right of anticipatory self defense, that we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
Mr. Gibson has it wrong, here, and very badly misunderstands national defense. First, here's Vice President Cheney:But most significantly was the doctrine that President Bush announced that first night after the attack on 9/11, what's come to be known as the Bush doctrine, that we would hold accountable -- just as we went after the terrorists, we would hold accountable those who supported terror, those who sponsored it, states that provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. And that's exactly what we've done.
This states, directly, that you would be held accountable (i.e. subject to actions ranging from censure to diplomatic pressure to asset seizure to sanctions to military action) if you supported terrorists. It is not limited to "preemptive strikes" and does not discuss that.
Why not? Because the US has always taken the position that preemptive strikes are sometimes necessary. This was true in the World Wars and in many other conflicts -- and the concept was defended by John Kerry in speeches and debates. Remember his desire to have the actions pass a "Global Test"?
Interesting that Charles Gibson would misremember this. Certainly he does not think that President Clinton was using the Bush Doctrine "enunciated in September 2002" to justify his missile strikes into Afghanistan and the Sudan and Iraq in the 1990s. Nor that President Carter was using this doctrine in 1979 when he sent covert operators and forces into Afghanistan.
So far, I've not seen the phrase "Bush Doctrine" term in general use -- and I read a LOT of policy documents. It seems to be the media's term, now picked up by others, for Mr. Bush's statements of September 12 2001. (For example, the 9/11 Commission Report goes into exhaustive detail for nearly 600 pages on our rationale and actions following 9/11 and the lead up to our eventual removal of Saddam Hussein a year and a half later -- but the only doctrines it mentions as "Islamic" and "Wahhabi" and a generic "doctrine" mention.)
Upshot -- Yesterday, I couldn't have told you what the phrase referred to, though I could give you a ten minute presentation of the Powell Doctrine and its affects on the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now it seems that Mr. Gibson has himself confused about it -- while suggesting that the US's right to defend itself from a planned attack is a new thing.
===|==============/ Level Head
Since then, I've looked around a bit. Vice President Cheney has used the term, almost invariably as "what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine". White House reporters and others have used it.
But our official National Security Strategy, which I had read, doesn't mention it at all.
Interestingly, while Sarah Palin articulated the position of the US reasonably well (considering that Mr. Gibson was obviously looking for a damaging admission) it turns out that Charles Gibson didn't know what (or when) the "Bush Doctrine" was either. That's ironic.
He said (in this YouTube video, about 8 minutes in):"The Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war"
Well, no. It was enunciated September 12, 2001 -- certainly Mr. Gibson remembers the events of the preceding day.The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, says that we have the right of anticipatory self defense, that we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
Mr. Gibson has it wrong, here, and very badly misunderstands national defense. First, here's Vice President Cheney:But most significantly was the doctrine that President Bush announced that first night after the attack on 9/11, what's come to be known as the Bush doctrine, that we would hold accountable -- just as we went after the terrorists, we would hold accountable those who supported terror, those who sponsored it, states that provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. And that's exactly what we've done.
This states, directly, that you would be held accountable (i.e. subject to actions ranging from censure to diplomatic pressure to asset seizure to sanctions to military action) if you supported terrorists. It is not limited to "preemptive strikes" and does not discuss that.
Why not? Because the US has always taken the position that preemptive strikes are sometimes necessary. This was true in the World Wars and in many other conflicts -- and the concept was defended by John Kerry in speeches and debates. Remember his desire to have the actions pass a "Global Test"?
Interesting that Charles Gibson would misremember this. Certainly he does not think that President Clinton was using the Bush Doctrine "enunciated in September 2002" to justify his missile strikes into Afghanistan and the Sudan and Iraq in the 1990s. Nor that President Carter was using this doctrine in 1979 when he sent covert operators and forces into Afghanistan.
So far, I've not seen the phrase "Bush Doctrine" term in general use -- and I read a LOT of policy documents. It seems to be the media's term, now picked up by others, for Mr. Bush's statements of September 12 2001. (For example, the 9/11 Commission Report goes into exhaustive detail for nearly 600 pages on our rationale and actions following 9/11 and the lead up to our eventual removal of Saddam Hussein a year and a half later -- but the only doctrines it mentions as "Islamic" and "Wahhabi" and a generic "doctrine" mention.)
Upshot -- Yesterday, I couldn't have told you what the phrase referred to, though I could give you a ten minute presentation of the Powell Doctrine and its affects on the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now it seems that Mr. Gibson has himself confused about it -- while suggesting that the US's right to defend itself from a planned attack is a new thing.
===|==============/ Level Head