Start a War – The National
Alright, I give up. Clearly, I’m not capable of avoiding politics right now. As much as I’d like to keep the music portion of my life detached from the academic and political junkie portions, it’s clearly not in the cards. In my defense, I spend huge amounts of time reading this stuff and getting increasingly aggravated. It’s hard to keep myself from letting the thoughts pour out. And then, since I’ve got a blog, this is where it’s going to show up.
After all, as much as I enjoy the readership and comments this blog is really about what works for me. And this is where I’m at right now. To just blithely post music reviews while 90% of my mind is elsewhere just wouldn’t feel honest. And to me, this blog is based completely on the idea that it is an honest reflection of myself and my world.
I’m still going to post about music – no worries about that. I’ve got a backlog of 15-20 albums that deserve a review, and tons more songs on top of that. But there’s going to be dual currents here for awhile.
I know some folks would prefer I keep the politics of it. To them, I apologize. I will suggest that you grow accustomed to skipping these posts, or at the extreme simply moving on to less topical shores for the next couple months.
So anyways, I need to get something off my chest about the Palin interview and her lack of awareness of the Bush Doctrine. Since the interview was released, a small cottage industry has developed of people defending her ignorance.
So let’s get one thing straight. There’s nothing “obscure” or “confusing” about this question. It’s not an insider term. It’s one that is likely familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in US foreign policy over the last 8 years.
But let’s assume for a moment that’s it not. Even if that were the case, surely there is a difference between an average citizen and a candidate for VP on the Republican ticket. It’s not like he asked her to comment on the argument about the sustainability of unipolarity in the newest Brooks and Wohlforth book. No, he asked a very simple question about whether she agrees with the significant foreign policy choices of the incumbent administration of her own party. This is an incredibly basic and important question that ought to be a basic litmus test of whether you are even aware of the context in which American power currently operates.
Gibson was not trying to get her by springing a trick question. It’s extremely clear that he assumed (perfectly reasonably) that this was a question someone aspiring to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful job on the planet would have some opinion on.
Further, while its true that “the Bush Doctrine” does not have one single, objective definition, this should have zero relevance in this conversation. Two reasons.
First, although there has always been debate about exactly what fell under the rubric of The Bush Doctrine, generally speaking the basic principles at stake were never in doubt. The core (according to virtually everyone who has written or talked about the subject for the past six years) is the notion that the US must maintain the option of preventative warfare.
This was put into context by reference to the changing nature of international politics in an age of terrorism. It was justified by painting a picture of undeterrable states who might be pursuing WMD capabilities. And it was constantly sustained by attempting to paint a broader picture of a global war on terrorism that must never flinch, never quail. And finally, all of this was wrapped up in the idea of democracy promotion – that the US was the shining city on the hill which would spread freedom across the world, at the barrel of a gun if necessary.
But – and here’s the crucial thing – none of that is particularly unique or interesting (certainly not worthy of calling it a Doctrine – capital D) without the attempt to change the basis for justifable military force. Everyone wants to spread freedom and beat the terrorists, but only Bush decided that this goal required altering long-held firewalls regarding preemption.
International law has always accepted the legitimacy of preemptiom in particular contexts. If war is imminent, the aggressed state may legitimately strike first in order to maximize its military advantage. However, this is worlds away from the new world of the Bush Doctrine. Driven by the neo-cons, the adminstration articulated a new right to preventive war. A state no longer was obligated to demonstrate imminent war – now it was enough to simply believe that conflict was inevitable at some unspecified date. Armed with that belief, a state could attack in order to forestall that (much worse) future conflict.
This is the thread that ties together all the “elements” of the Bush Doctrine. From this perspective, terrorism is an existential threat and states who support terrorists pose a very real risk to the US even if they are taking no immediate aggressive actions. Further, lack of democracy is what enables terrorism. And more, any state we dislike who we believe to be developing WMDs becomes a legitimate target. After all, if we don’t strike now they will gain an arsenal that will deter us from striking in the future.
And so, we waged war in Iraq. And again, we bluster and fulminate against Iran, suggesting that all options must be on the table to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Put simply, we already fought one disastrous war based on this doctrine and Palin and her running mate seem plenty willing to risk another for it. The term may carry a variety of meanings, but it takes a willful blindness to pretend to not understand the central meaning here.
So that’s argument number 1 why the Palin apologists are wrong here. But second, and probably far more important: even if there is a debate, Palin clearly knew nothing about it. It’s not like she said “that’s a broad term – could you clarify which element you mean?” Instead, she reached blindly, asking if Gibson meant Bush’s “worldview” – whatever that means – and eventually settled on a super-generic defense of the idea that the US ought to seek out and kill terrorists.
The funny thing is, this answer gave us a pretty clear answer to the question – just not intentionally. By demonstrating that she approaches foreign policy purely as an ideological practice – begin with a basic worldview and don’t worry about the details. The Bush Doctrine at its core, after all, was merely a statement that the only relevant factors in international affairs are muscle and will. Josh Marshall Matt Yglesias has articulated this as the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics, basically: “They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.”
In a nutshell, that’s the Bush Doctrine. And Palin’s answer, for all that it failed to address any of this, still told us all we needed to know. She doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is because in her worldview, knowing pesky policy details is irrelevant. As long as we don’t blink, we are guaranteed victory.