The not so slow death of the Bush Doctrine

[sailaway21]

I was sceptical of President Bush's trip to the Middle East long before he actually departed these shores. "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means". What could the President say to the leaders of the Middle East that the US Marine Corps, the US Army, and General Petraeus have not already said most eloquently. You're either with us or you're a'gin us. Bang!

Apparently there is good reason for limiting the American presidency to two terms. Late in second terms, American presidents seem to get concerned with the "legacy thing" and no legacy can possibly be complete without a truly pointless and futile gesture towards the Palestinians. Mr. Bush has succumbed to the impulse and Ms Rice is surely starting to look like the best NFL commisioner the league never had. Under the strictures of the Peter Principle Ms Rice seems to have missed a perfectly good opportunity to devote her efforts towards keeping Pac-Man Jones out of strip clubs and gone and wasted them on the Palestinian Club for Anarchy. Her naivete leaves her looking more fit for the position of atheletic director of a Big Ten university than NFL commish. The Big Ten is always on the scout for AD's with the ability to look past the student parking lot.

Perhaps we can overlook Mr. Bush and Ms Rice's renunciation of the Bush Doctrine (end terror-then statehood) in regard to the Palestinians. After all, how much harm can they do to an intractable situation? But no, they had to fly on to the Gulf and meet with the Saudis, who found them more than willing to accept the same old-same old about being out ally's. If Iran is 50% of the terror problem and Islamist problem, then surely the House of Saud is the facilitator to the rest of it. Saudi money, Saudi culture, and Saudi citizens are all either directly or indirectly involved in virtually every Islamist terror act we've yet to witness. Coincidence? I think not.

How ironic. Had GW Bush followed up his stirring post-9/11 addresses by declaring that our war status required an immediate decoupling from our dependence on Saudi oil and friendship, and necessary to that decoupling was the emergency level implementation of pumping America's own oil reserves we'd be far down the road to a rational 21st century energy policy. Matters like ANWR would have been dispensed with as the cheap political tricks they are. We'd be well down the road to what a nuclear America might look like in the future. And we might not be staring down an agricultural and ecological nightmare called fuel from corn that any kid with a Doctor Demento chemistry set can tell you is the 21st century version of synfuels. (just for laughs Ioffer up the fact that it takes 2 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol and it is economically advantageous to have the refinery's close to the supply of corn. The corn belt sits atop the Ogalalla aquifer which is already in a seriously depleted condition now. Water withdrawal regulation seems inevitable without the ethanol plants. Where or where are they to get their water? If one gazes just to the east of Iowa one can just about espy the largest pumpable fresh water reserves in the world. Shoal draft keels could make a big come back on the Great Lakes) The ethanol and biodiesel fad is going to be overcome by the practical science of it all, eventually. But, in the meantime, we've lost precious years in the pursuit of energy security that we cannot get back.

Fortuanately the results of an Iraqi democracy will likely far eclipse Bush's reneging on the Bush Doctrine. The tragedy is that he'll leave an America that will have to learn the doctrine all over again, still without a viable energy policy.

He could just as well stayed home and sent a communique stating that Palestinian statehood will never be more than a pipe dream until Palestinians desire life more than terror and that the Saudi alliance was null and void. If the Saudi's are concerned about a regnant Iran they'd either better get their own house in order or consider the possibilities of buying their arms and allies elsewhere.

More on the sad turn of events here:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...bush_doctrine/

[AboardIndigo]

I frequently read your posts as they're full of thoughtful analysis, and almost as frequently agree with lots of what you say.

If you haven't considered submitting your writings to a broader audience in return for some fair compensation, you should.

[Freesail99]

Good post, not sure if you saw the CNN piece where they showed Bush holding swords and dancing and still holding more swords.

[SailorMitch]

Sway -- Who knew Bush even had a doctrine????? He certainly hasn't had much of a foreign policy. As you say, figures he'd wait until year 7 to try to pull SOMETHING together. His "mission accomplished" act already laid out his legacy anyway.

As for turning on the House of Fraud, his daddy would never let him do that. The ties of the Saudi royal family and the Bushes run very deep. I won't even go into Bush's hypocrisy of pushing democracy in Iraq while kissing the cheeks (upper and lower no doubt) of the Saudi's -- one of the most oppressive dictatorships anywhere.

[Valiente]

Don't you mean the Cheney doctrine?

[sailaway21]

I guess I should have mentioned that at least Bush HAD a doctrine, something that his predecessor was unemcumbered with. The Bush Doctrine was the right doctrine and has shown tangible results, thus my consternation at it's apparent abandonment. If a Democrat truly is elected to the White House in '08, we'll get the opportunity to see how talking nice compares to no talking until the terror stops.

[sailaway21]

Mitch,
You need to get out more. Just a brief update for you: Libya has disarmed, there is democracy in Iraq, the Syrian's have been tossed out of Lebanon (although not their influence), and we're contemplating the rearmament of Europe to meet a resurgent Russia. Those are all legacies of the Bush foreign policy. A subscription to even the Baltimore Sun would allow the gleaning of these facts.

[sck5]

and billions of people wake up around the world every day hating our guts. Not just our enemies. Our allies too. And most of them didnt before Bush starting acting out his "doctrine", which as far as I can tell involves sitting alone and frowning at everyone. You think this makes us safer? I dont.

[Sailormon6]

I also agree with much of your writing, sailaway, but not this time. The Bush doctrine wasn't a strategy for solving the Palestinian problem. It was simply a precondition to any solution. If you want to solve a problem, you have to eliminate obstacles to the solution. It became clear to President Bush that that particular precondition (the cessation of terrorist attacks) was an obstacle that stood in the way of progress toward a solution.

President Bush understands that the Palestinian leadership isn't able to control the terrorists in it's society. What good does it do to demand that the Palestinian leadership put an end to terrorism, if they're not capable of doing so? Too many Palestinians support the terrorists, and the relatively weak Palestinian leadership doesn't have the ability to suppress the terrorists within it's own society. But President Bush believes that a significant element of Palestinian society wants peace. That's the basis of his strategy. He's betting the ranch that the Palestinians who prefer peace to unending violence will grow and eventually prevail over terrorism.

President Bush has a choice. He can either continue to insist upon the cessation of terrorism as a precondition to the establishment of a Palestinian homeland, or he can eliminate the precondition. It's obvious that, so long as there is no Palestinian homeland, there will be no end to terrorism. If a Palestinian homeland is created, there is a realistic likelihood that the violence will gradually diminish, and perhaps end. The only action that offers any hope for a resolution to the problem is if a Palestinian homeland is created.

The great "cause" that motivates the Palestinians to martyr themselves is their desire to have their own homeland. I am convinced that the President believes that, if a Palestinian homeland can be created, it will eliminate the engine that drives terrorism. There will no longer be a "cause" powerful enough to motivate Palestinians to martyr their children and to suffer endless military clashes. If the President can establish a Palestinian homeland, the Palestinian "cause" will come to fruition, and eventually the elements of Palestinian society that long for peace will prevail over the terrorists, who will be seen by their own society as criminals and the enemies of their own society.

What if a Palestinian homeland is established, and terrorism does not diminish and eventually cease? Well, then they can all continue to fight and die for some other cause, just as they are for their homeland, but they will have to find a new cause, because the old one will no longer exist. They'll continue to die, just as they are now, but at least President Bush will have tried to stop it by giving them their homeland, and that's an effort worth making.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "I wouldn't give a damn for a man who can only spell a word one way." Only an unimaginative person would try to accomplish a difficult task, and, if he failed, give up trying. A creative person tries one way, and, if he fails, backs up and tries a different tact.

Both you (sailaway) and the Globe article accuse President Bush of "...get[ting] concerned with the "legacy thing" and no legacy can possibly be complete without a truly pointless and futile gesture towards the Palestinians." The President has said many times that he's not the least bit concerned with his legacy. He's content to make his best efforts, and let the historians determine upon his legacy.

The Palestinian issue underlies much of the passion that motivates the violence in the Mideast, and that affects us all. President Bush only has one year left to find a solution to that problem. Frankly, I don't think you have the prescience to be able to conclude that his effort is a "...truly pointless and futile gesture."

President Bush could do what President Clinton did during his final year, i.e., leave all the difficult and controversial decisions for his successor, or he can continue, until his last day in office, to try to find solutions to the great problems that we elected him to address. True to his character, President Bush will continue to seek solutions throughout the remainder of his term.

The cynical and shallow opinions you expressed in this thread are beneath your customary standards, but our liberal friends must be revelling in them.

[Rockter]

The best energy security, by far, is to use less of it.
You do not even have to use much less.
To anyone driving a Suburban, then complaining about energy security, I say "pick your own rasberries, U bassa!"