In Iran and North Korea, in order to curb their nuclear ambitions, an unequivocal promise to use American destructive air force must be added to multilateral pressures.
Domestic opponents of such measures, whether Democrat or Republican, must be energetically and publicly confronted by the administration. Quislings or profiteers cannot be tolerated.
Private foundations must steer major new funds and efforts into their media operations and into training a new generation of reporters with foreign policy and military knowledge and experience. The Defense Department must not merely welcome, but financially underwrite, private media correspondents embedding within garrison and frontline units.
The defense universities must reexamine their reliance on some faculty inexperienced in war, and indeed as ignorant and opposed to U.S. force as some in the Leftist media. The CIA is already cleaning house. The State Department needs to as well.
As seen from the generally unfocused thinking among the Commentary contributors, those friendly toward President Bush’s objectives need a more focused and effective policy to support. That can be found not in caving to his Democratic critics, but in pursuing an even more assertive doctrine, integrated within a more comprehensive strategy and execution.
President Bush is not running for reelection. And even though his poll ratings may suffer from a more assertive foreign policy, his legacy—of defending and advancing freedom—will not. And most importantly, rather than simply lurching from coping slogan to coping slogan, America will lastingly benefit.
Footnotes:
1.The 1969 Wake Island statement of the Nixon Doctrine might be summarized as “strength through partnership,” as the editor of my American Enterprise Online piece changed my draft. By 1971, under the pressure of domestic and international politics, it had migrated to “negotiation through strength and partnership,” the “weaker” formulation I was addressing in 1971 and in my piece. It’s not directly relevant to the thrust of the piece, so the editor’s change in my text can stand. However, this change in formulation is important as an indicator of the difference within a “doctrine’ over time in response to changing conditions, and to understanding that a “doctrine” is known through and only as good as its implementing strategy. Both the presentation and the comprehensiveness of Nixon’s “doctrine’ were superior to that of Bush, but both may fall on the pyre of Democrat scorched earth politics and war weariness
Editorial Note: Mr. Kesler’s article is being cross-posted at The American Enterprise Online. .
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
Dave Schuler:
November 9th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Back in the ancient days when I took a U. S. diplomatic history course the professor and I had a year-long debate on whether the United States had a foreign policy. The professor’s position was theat the United States did not have and never had a foreign policy. My counter-claim was that we did have a foreign policy that consisted solely of maintaining open borders and intervening in our neighbors’ affairs to ensure they stayed weak. I think I may have won him over a little.
I now think of U. S. foreign policy as an emergent phenomenon not under the control of individual persons or organizations. And, like any emergent phenomenon, it may have unforeseen characteristics.
Right now it doesn’t look very good for an assertive U. S. posture in foreign policy. I think that both political parties will be running against the Bush Administration’s record in 2008 and the “Bush doctrine” is part of that. So ceteris paribus whoever is elected is likely to want to distance himself from the policies of the current Administration.
But, as I say, foreign policy is an emergent phenomenon and things have a way of surprising you.
Daniel E. Teodoru:
November 9th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
After a series of “dynamite quotes we get to the meat of Bruce’s proposals. The is, is, is, is…followed by the should, should, should, should…are stagering, almost Maoist, if not Wahabbi-like. But the bottom line is that after hundreds Billions– with a “b”– for a war run by total mediocrities in suits leading a dummy by the nose, we get, not peace, but more war. In the meanitime, China, that up and coming giant holding more dollars than Japan, is taking measure of our military power limits while it builds lomgterm for the next century of dominion.
I read a lot of Chinese stuff that sounds just like what Kesler wrote. But look at what they do with it vs. what Bush does with Bruce’s advice.
The Democrats ARE whores and Kerry was everything VVJP and Kessler said about him. I can’t now say that he changed. But, the 2004 campaign was a unique chance to debate whether America should be run by a moron and a cabal of mediocre shisters. Instead, Bruce et. al. made it a debate about Vietnam, as if Bush victory would mean no more Vietnam tragedy. But look. The guy you voted for is killing OUR kids, sending them nito meaningless house to house combat. To me you can’t be an American unless you consider every man and woman in combat your son, daughter, brother, sister. So I ask, are their charred remains to be justified with quotes from Atcheson, who died in the 1970s?
We are up against young people seeking glory through suicide-murder who don’t fit in but are filthy rich because Bush-types prefer getting rich on their papas’ oil than calling another Kennedyesque “man on the moon in a decade,” now “America gasoline free in a decade.”
I used to think in 2000 Bush victory akin to a second coming of Christ. He was modest, had fallen to the bottom and climbed his way back through moral discipline, favorite hero is Jesus Christ, favorite book is the Bible….But in fact, he let Devil Cheney make all the decisions because since he went dry he has to go to bed early.
I charge Bush with criminal negligence because he simply nodded “yes” to faits accompli. But Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons I accuse of seeking to feel their manliness at the expense of OUR children. Bush in term 2 threw out the neocons, locked Cheney in the basement and left Rummy at DoD so that he may take the blame if Iraq fails. So now we see how America gets run without a brain. After 9/11 we went to war in Afghanistan to end binLaden and alQaeda. Congress gave a whole lot of money for that. But once there, it was cannibalized to put men in Iraq and present Congress with a fait accompli. The only reason we are still in Iraq is that without the neocons to guide them neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld can think of any way out. And then considering what light weights the neocons all are (just read COMMENTARY and the JINSA site for proof) it’s a sad commentary that we re-elected GW. Oh God, what I would give for his “Poopy” back in power!
Sam:
November 10th, 2005 at 2:00 am
Guys, let’s get a grip. If Iraq has shown us anything, it is that globalization (remember: the topic here) clearly limits US power. Bush and Co. thought “regime change” was going to be easy. Well, it’s not. And if you are going to be serious about “shrinking the gap” you have to realize that American power alone cannot finance and manage the incredibly complex task of bringing even a country like Iraq into globalization. And please notice the facts (things, I know, that are alien these days in neocon foreign policy circles). Iraq is not that big a place. Compare its population to the Congo, or Sudan, or Iran, or Indonesia. If the US is going to have a “muscular” foreign policy that means something more than just a lot of testosterone chest-thumping at AEI (is Chalabi really good for the US?) and Heritage, then we need to recognize, first and foremost, that US power cannot do it alone. And one question for Mr. Kesler: how many hundreds of thousands of South Koreas are you willing to let die in some sort of US air strike against the North?
Jacob H.:
November 10th, 2005 at 2:54 am
I’m surprised that it took three comments before somebody started alluding to Barnett’s theories, because the starting point for a winning strategy is an accurate description of the world. From that accurate description of the world, one constructs a foreign policy. This foreign policy is affected by a host of secondary considerations, of which domestic policy is an extremely important one. Despite this importance it remains secondary. To drill into a debate about specific policy alternatives (do we institute dissuasive-level fossel fuel taxes or don’t we?) without a clear understanding of our assumptions is a recipe for confusion.
Without an accurate description of our strategic enviornment, we have no hope of creating a comprehensive strategy, let alone a coherent and assertive doctrine. Domestic dissent is a symptom of an incoherent and unshared strategic vision. We must address the underlying dynamic and not get caught up in focusing solely upon the dynamic’s proximate effects.
On a totally unrelated note, I was struck that Bruce’s Acheson quote was from a speech at Amherst College. Does Bruce have any connection to the fair college or had the celebrity of the our guest speakers just declined by the time I attended?
mark:
November 10th, 2005 at 3:34 am
I have to note, in fairness to Bruce, he is not a huge fan of PNM theory – though he thinks it is important to know what Dr, Barnett is talking about because the idea is increasingly influential at DoD – Bruce would not put himself in the ” shrink the Gap” column. He’s a skeptic.
Neoconservatism, Bruce can address himself.
Jacob H:
November 10th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
I wasn’t necessarily arguing for PNM theory in my comment – I was rather arguing for the need for that level of theory.