Condoleezza Rice is Ludicrous

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters Friday that Mike Huckabee’s recent comments criticizing some aspects of Bush administration foreign policy were “ludicrous.”
“And one would only have to be not observing the facts, let me say that, to say that this is not a ‘go it alone foreign policy,” said Rice.

In an article in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs, released last week, the Republican presidential candidate characterized the Bush administration’s foreign policy as an “arrogant, bunker mentality.”

That sounds about right. And if Huckabee wants to capture the swing vote, I suggest that he doesn't back away from those comments. Not only would that be politically foolish. It would also be untrue.

Let's take Rice up on her challenge and observe the facts. Of course, the United States has multinational contacts, exchanges, initiatives, and allies. An example are the multinational talks that were used to encourage North Korea to close down its nuclear weapon operations. But it is disingenuous to point to this kind of diplomatic coordination and lose sight of the Bush administration's core premise when it comes to foreign policy-- that of preemptive first-strike unilaterialism, irrespective of whether there is justification for that action at all.

Here is the president's own words in the State of the Union Address in 2004.

"From the beginning, America has sought international support for ouroperations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html

During the presidential race, conservatives derided John Kerry for his "global test" remarks, the implication that our national interest was somehow in thrall to the United Nations or other countries from around the world who were unfriendly to our democratic ideals. But the test of which Kerry spoke was the same one that the signers of the Declaration of Independence proposed: "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." With the hindsight of history, it now appears that the Bush administration's permission slip was based on lies, propaganda, and arrogance of which Rice with her invocation of mushroom clouds on the Sunday talk shows was a part.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says that "nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." However, the Bush administration has gutted the meaning of that clause to allow the United States to attack another country if there is a perceived threat or even if there is no threat at all. In the fall of 1939, the Bush Doctrine would be the only permission slip Hitler would need to commence Operation Barbarossa, the blitzkrieg into the Soviet Union.

As policy in the hands of our mortal enemies, the Bush Doctrine can only make the world less safe. The ironic consequences of the doctrine is that it will force competing powers in the Middle East to gravitate to balance of power alliances, which in a backhanded way may keep the peace through the cold war mechanism of mutually assured destruction. Thus, I see an emerging Triple Entente between Russia, the People's Republic of China, and Iran as a buffer against Western adventurism, which is looking more and more to be only the United States. However, history has demonstrated that such alliances are fragile and mutable with tendencies toward military catastrophy.

Looking at Iraq in particular, the entire policy is predicated on some rather large assumptions. These include that US military might can prevail against a thousand years of tribalism, the lex talonus; that democracy can take root in a part of the world that has no history of democracy; that the mass of the ordinary people in Iraq even desire democracy; and that US military power can provide the transition into the creation of political institutions.

No previous president has been this forward thinking in regards to the middle east. Instead, they have simply reacted to events in predictable knee jerks. None has done the heavy lifting needed to effect real change in this important area of the world.

Most presidents are not prepared as Bush was to invest the treasure and blood of our country on the most flimsy of evidence.

To surrender - to turn and run - to yield the battlefield to our enemies will result in the same thing we saw at the end of Vietnam - millions will be displaced with no hope and thousands will be murdered as thugs emerge to fill the vaccuum we leave.

This statement is a dishonest re-writing of history. America invested more than 50,000 of their bravest. Today, we are friends with China and Viet Nam. Is it your contention that we should have moved troops into Cambodia and Laos and kept fighting in Viet Nam for another decade? To what end? How many more dead would have satisfied you? To put in in personal terms, are you prepared to sacrifice yourself or your children for Bush's vision?

I appreciate your input more than the lengthy words of the President. That said the Bush doctrine as explained in the first post does three important things - first, it aggressively seeks to take the battle to our enemies. Second, it takes into account the need for real change that will impact the situation over the long haul - essentially establishing a democractic government, rebuilding the country's infrastructure and educating the next generation about the dual threat created by Baathists and terror groups who want to dominate the region. Third, it serves notice to other countries the USA is serious about our long term strategic goals and that we want good things for the region, but not at the expense of relying on failed policies and governments of the past.