Sarah Palin is getting support, not just from conservative pundits, but from the Washington Post on whether there is a single “Bush Doctrine”:
Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea — enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document — that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president’s second-term “freedom agenda”; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a “coalition of the willing” if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about — the doctrine of preemptive war.”If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it’s one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine,” said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. “But in fact it’s not the only one.”
The Post continues:
“I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration’s policies than they deserve.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he thought there was no “single piece of paper” that represents the Bush doctrine, but said several ideas collectively make up the doctrine, including the endorsement of preventive war and the idea that there is such a thing as a “war on terror.” “There are many elements to the Bush doctrine,” he said. In an interview, Bush press secretary Dana Perino said that “the Bush doctrine is commonly used to describe key elements of the president’s overall strategy for dealing with threats from terrorists.” She laid out three elements: “The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. . . . We will confront grave threats before they fully materialize and will fight the terrorists abroad so we don’t have to face them at home. . . . We will counter the hateful ideology of the terrorist by promoting the hopeful alternative of human freedom.”
Well, well. And of course, ABC News itself has recognized the multiple incarnations of the phrase. So we are left to wonder whether this was just sloppy research/ignorance on Gibson’s part or a deliberate gotcha gone awry. I’ll take Napoleon’s advice (“Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.”)
..and tony karon’s ‘analysis’ should be taken seriously because…? what? he writes for time?
if, in the wake of what happened in hamastan, palestinians calculate that a third ‘intifada’ would be in there strategic self-interest, then they really are counting on a resurgence of militant european anti-zionism to rescue them…
…what could the palestinian leadership possibly have learned from the recent conflagration that would give them confidence that an israeli response wouldn’t even be more comprehensively targeted and effective? if there’s a single thing that the gaza incursion revealed to the world in general and the region in particular, it’s that the idf learns from its mistakes…
…indeed, with a new israeli coalition government in place, does even the most vehement anti-israeli palestinian doubt that mischief will be more than matched by force?
….in my view, a sharper analysis would have been how the election campaign blurred the necessary global outreach by israel’s leadership as to what the hamastan incrustion was essential, necessary, wise, well-executed, respectful of international law and – yes – proportionate militarily and strategically…instead, we got politics….
“…the Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution at Camp David in July 2000…”
It would certainly help the process along if zombie lies like this one would die.
OMG this Time’s piece by Karon is absurd: logically and historically. This guy is obviously rather dense and
intellectually either dishonest or quite unsophisticated. It is embarrasing to see Times publishing such nonsense…
The Israeli military incursions into Jenin (2002), Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008) send a clear signal: like everyone else on this planet, Israelis would rather kill their enemies (and civilians who get in the way) than be kidnapped, rocketed or blown up. If Obama wants to prevent a new “intifada,” his emissaries need to warn the Arabs that Israel can no longer be restrained, and a renewed terror war will bring calamity on a scale equal or greater than what just happened in Gaza.
“If Obama wants to prevent a new “intifada,” his emissaries need to warn the Arabs that Israel can no longer be restrained, and a renewed terror war will bring calamity on a scale equal or greater than what just happened in Gaza.”
Ignoring entirely, of course, that history pretty clearly shows that, at least in the short run, most people will also prefer a costly, bloody, largely pointless insurrection/resistance movement to occupation and repression. So that’s not really a recipe for “peace” so much as it’s a recipe for Israeli dominance of “Mandate Palestine,” which of course is the real desired outcome.
I wonder if Brien Jackson is a new idiot in this blog, and the old one using different label.
The gymnastics on this blog will be highly entertaining when Netanyahu makes that corrupt fascist Lieberman his Defense/Housing/Foreign Minister.
#5: “most people will also prefer a costly, bloody, largely pointless insurrection/resistance movement to occupation and repression. “
There is no such choice. The
“costly, bloody, pointless insurrection”
would not be an alternative, but an addition
to what you call “occupation and repression”
(and what I’d call Israel’s continuing existence and
her self-defense.)
Also, but that reasoning, there’d always be an intifada,
given the continuance of what you call “occupation and repression”…
This is not, however, the case; and the second intifada, at least,
was quelled by the use of force – which proves (if any proof were needed)
that it can be done.
…i think we’re kind of ‘burying the lead’ here…if karon’s ‘analysis is correct, he is the one declaring that the palestinians believe that violence against israel and israelis is the best tactic now for attaining their goals…
…if we take that seriously, then issues of ‘occupation’ and ‘accommodation’ fade into insignificance…
if the palestinians believe escalation is the way to go, there will be escalation…
is the palestinian ‘leadership’ betting that, after the dust settles, a truce will be imposed by the americans/europeans that will leave them significantly better off…?
in fact – and it IS a fact – the west bank economy is doing far, far better than the hamastan economy ever was….the west bankers literally have more to lose than their gazan counterparts…
….my bet is that a third intifada is not in the cards for no other reason than it is to the palestinian’s strategic benefit to appear open and flexible than recalcitrant and violent…that and it’s less expensive to escalate…
…given how israel’s voters have chosen to express themselves, a palestinian strategy to intifada their way to influence will leave george mitchell – and barack obama – look foolish and impotent…
…if the palestinians are so self-destructive that they make choices that could alienate a barack obama, then abba eban was wrong – it’s not that the palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity…they never miss an opportunity to DESTROY an opportunity…
call it the ‘obaminada’…
What opportunities have the Palestinian Arabs missed? Don’t forget that for the decisive majority the goal is not a peaceful settlement but the obliteration of the Zionist Entity to avenge the humiliation of 1948. Not every risk they have taken in pursuit of this objective has paid off, but it is still too early to pass historical judgment on the overall strategy. The Pals dream of conquest. The Jews dream of acceptance. What to the Jews is a missed opportunity, to the Pals is a logical step.
The only peace process for us is the Jews going away.
Mohammad reminds me of that Alien in Indenpence Day. When asked by the President what it is you want from us, the Alien’s response was “die”. There is no other answer for at least a substantial portion of the Pals.
if, indeed, seth, mohammad and macdaddy are ‘correct,’ then negotiations are useless and this administration is not just idiotic but masochistic to foment a ‘peace’ process…
….my earlier posts were made in the hope and (admittedly diminished) confidence that there are palestinians who recognize that a third intifada would leave them far, far, far worse off than they are even today….
…the transformation of gaza into hamastan – and, of course, the kneecappings and assassinations in the wake of the latest conflict – has removed any and all ambiguity about the existential nature of this conflict…again, any sanctioned effort by palestinians to violent escalate via an intifada only affirms what has been a profound and painful mindshift for israelis: they have no partner for peace…
…an intifada means that neither george mitchell nor barack obama have a partner for peace either…
Looks like the Palestinians are suffering from the same delusion that Senator Judd Gregg was: He likes me! He really likes me!
Violence as a political tool was intrinsic in the “peace process” farce. Every time the attacks racheted up, the response was to press Israel for more concessions (what we used to naively call capitulation) on the theory that the end result would magically solve the immediate problem, which itself was completely misdiagnosed. The peace process was really peace at any price, and every terrorist act was paradoxically seen as a reflection of the lack of peace, a peace the terrorists so desperately wanted that they could not refrain from blowing people to bits on buses and at dance clubs and ice cream parlors. Once the narrative was imposed no act, no matter how seemingly contradictory, was permitted to shatter the illusion. And with even more certainty, no act was ever the Palestinian’s fault; it was rather part of the natural landscape like an eclipse or maybe a shark attack, devoid of moral significance except as a rebuke to the victims that “peace” was not yet achieved. So I guess it makes perfect sense that an election that resulted from thousands of discrete terroristic acts that would normally disqualify a party from credibly arguing that they just want peace, would in the context of a more “sophisticated” analysis be interpreted as an obstacle to a peace that is ever so close to being realized.
ian is (sadly) correct…
…but i think the narrative arc he describes is on the verge of being snapped.
“The gymnastics on this blog will be highly entertaining when Netanyahu makes that corrupt fascist Lieberman his Defense/Housing/Foreign Minister”
Lieberman should become Defense Minister; he is clearly just about the only one with a clear visions of how to defend the interests of Israel on a sustained basis.
Adding a housing ministry to Yisrael Beytenu list of portofolios would also make sense; since the growth of settlements in Judea and Samaria are fundamental in the above.
That would have additional benefit for Netanyahu, in that when leftist dim-wits would start whinning about “corrupt, fascist” policy of settlement expansion and securitn the Jordan vallley – and they will – Netanyahu can simply say ‘that’s not me, but that’s what I have to put up with to have a stable government…you know the price we pay for democracy’.
At this point the look on the face of dips#@!t boy in the White House and all the Obamettes…Now THAT will be entertaining.
OK, I’m done MY gymnastics.