Bush's National Security Strategy, Clinton Redux?
With the publication of its new National Security Strategy, the Bush Revolution is officially over. We’re seeing a return to a foreign policy that is much more akin to the foreign policies pursued by the administration’s predecessors than by this administration in its first term. The new strategy’s twin pillars — of promoting human rights, freedom and democracy and of working together with our friends and allies — have been central pillars of American foreign policy for decades. The reversal is clear in the way the strategy shifts the balance from emphasizing force to emphasizing diplomacy, from relying on America’s unilateral power to relying on multilateral alliances and institutions, from stressing the need to ensure America’s military preeminence to stressing the importance of enhancing our power by working with others.
In some notable ways, the new strategy document represents a return to the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. You can see it in the new emphasis on democratization (no different from Clinton's enlargement strategy), the new recognition that globalization creates fundamentally different challenges and opportunities (which was central to Clinton's foreign policy, but entirely missing from the 2002 Strategy document), and in the centrality of working with allies and friends and the decided preference for diplomacy over the use of military force (which was at the core of Clinton's strategy). And while the new document reiterates that preemption remains a key part of the strategy, it does so in a way that is little different from how the Clinton administration addressed the issue in its discussions on the use of force.
The interesting question is why the Bush administration has decided to reverse course. Part of the answer, surely, lies in the fact that reality demonstrated the limits of its revolutionary foreign policy. One key reality is that most of the threats we face today cannot be effectively defeated by American (military) power alone; it requires a multifaceted use of power and the active cooperation of willing and able allies. Another is that America’s actions must enjoy international legitimacy if they are to be effective in solving global problems.
Yet, it is clear that the administration has accepted these new realities only reluctantly. It has been forced to change course by necessity rather than out of conviction. And it therefore remains to be seen whether its actual conduct of foreign affairs in the weeks and months ahead will be more in keeping with the words of this new Strategy than the sentiments of the old.
Uh, I thought there was that pre-emptive war thing still in there. Was that part of the "old" foreign policy?
March 16, 2006 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops! Bush strategy - that's an oxymoron -"represents a return to the foreign policy of Bill Clinton." That'll cause a riot among the republican faithful who've been saying for years that Clinton is the whole reason we're in this mess. I can hardly wait to see how they dissemble that little gem and make it come out as The Bush Doctrine. (I continue to have a picture in my head of the White House a maze of little white rats running around in circles looking for the exit and constantly running into blank walls.)
March 16, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting question is why the Bush administration has decided to reverse course.
Have they really reversed course?
And it therefore remains to be seen whether its actual conduct of foreign affairs in the weeks and months ahead will be more in keeping with the words of this new Strategy than the old.
That's what we need to watch.
March 16, 2006 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have only had a chance to give the document a cursory read, but so far it seems not so much a return to the Clinton foreign policy, as to the policy agenda that was laid out by Bush during the 2000 campaign - his "uniquely American internationalism" of which Condoleeza Rice was the chief discernable architect. The focus is on a Great Power approach that seeks cooperation on regional agendas with other "main centers of global power".
Perhaps I missed it, but so far as I can tell no really significant role for the UN is is foreseen by the authors. Section IX does contain some comments on the various ways in which the UN needs to be fixed. But those comments seem isolated from the rest of the document, which does little to suggest how this reformed UN is seen as contributing in any substantial way to US and global security. The UN is a laughable sideshow from this administration's perspective. The only reason it is present in the document at all is because the administration's right wing anti-internationalist constituents enjoy seeing the UN beaten over the head with a stick from time to time.
And again maybe I missed it, but the authors of the strategy seem to exert themselves strenuously to avoid any discussion at all of the concept of "international law". A key section is section II, which is all about championing aspiration for human dignity, fighting tyranny etc. The Bush administration doesn't seem to believe that strengthening and upholding international law plays any role in this effort - or in any other effort on behalf of national and global security for that matter. Even when various individual treaties or agreements are addressed directly, they are not viewed in the more general context of advancing international law. The administration's legal outlook is still apparently determined by convservative judicial radicals who reject the very notion of international law.
This is certainly not a document that defends liberal internationalism - of the Clinton variety or any other kind. It defends great power prerogative in the context of a more informal form of multilateral problem-solving. More "cooperation" and multilateralism is not the same thing as internationalism.
March 16, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Dream on Ivo?
You been suckered by a West Texas wildcatter. Jeezusaleezus. He threw those "goodies" in there just so you'd gush.
Sheeh. IRAN. PRE-EMPTIVE WAR
or have not been following the Bolton Watch?
Hall of Mirrors, Versailles on the Potomac
March 16, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is this clown Ivo Daalder?
Bush is racing to a war on Iran, following the EXACT same gameplan he ran on Iraq (probably because he doesn't have the imagination to even change it - and doesn't have to because suckers like Daalder buy it) three years ago.
THIS is a change in foreign policy to one of "allies" and no unilateral pre-emptive force?
What makes this guy think the neocons have left town? THEIR national strategy was laid out years ago and the Bush crowd have been following it to the letter. THEIR strategy says attack Iran. It says attack Egypt. It says attack Saudi Arabia. It says attack Syria. It says attack anybody and everybody that Israel says should be attacked - or who has oil - or who can be defeated fairly easily so their cronies can make war profits. It says explicitly that NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH EXCEPT THE US should be allowed to be even a REGIONAL power let alone an international one.
What part of this doesn't Daalder comprehend?
Where the hell does Josh find these clowns? And why?
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 16, 2006 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a correction: the 2000 Bush policy statement was called "A Distinctly American Internationalism". Just wanted to clear that up for anybody who was Googling "a uniquely American internationalism" without luck.
March 16, 2006 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where the hell does Josh find these clowns?
From the Clinton administration?
And why?
So he can help give the Clinton government in exile a public forum as they prepare to retake the White House in 2008, and set to work brewing the PNAC-lite they are planning to pour down the country's throat when they get back in.
I mention PNAC because Mr. Daalder signed two of their letters in 2003.
March 16, 2006 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahah! Thank you for pointing this out to me!
And I was quoting their documents to him! Boy, was I naive!
I guess that pretty clearly puts this site in the neocon-lite camp, if not the neocons themselves. As I and Justin Raimond have been saying, Democrat = Republican = War Party.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 16, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is really unhelpful and typical of the nonsensical conspiracy theories that run rampant around here. Someone like Ivo gives a thoughtful commentary on the evolution in bush strategy, notes some common ground and all he gets is abuse and allegations of pnac lite, which i presume is a slur although much of what pnac did was useful and thoughtful. can you people cope with anything that doesn't completely trash bush. are you entirely beholden to some tired old pelosi/ dean talking points. come on, make some sort of effort and objective thinking. well done ivo. keep up the good work.
March 16, 2006 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Architect,
If you really think much of what PNAC did was useful and thoughtful, then why do you think it is a "slur" to associate Daalder with PNAC and call his approach "PNAC-lite"?
Which conspiracy theories are you talking about? No one said Daalder signed some sort of secret, underground PNAC letter. He affixed his name to two public PNC letters in 2003. My characterization of his approach as PNAC-lite was based in part on his willingness to associate himself with that organization, and in part on his many published writings - including those
March 16, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Architect,
If you really think much of what PNAC did was useful and thoughtful, then why do you think it is a "slur" to associate Daalder with PNAC and call his approach "PNAC-lite"?
Which conspiracy theories are you talking about? No one said Daalder signed some sort of secret, underground PNAC letter. He affixed his name to two public PNC letters in 2003. My characterization of his approach as PNAC-lite was based in part on his willingness to associate himself with that organization, and in part on his many published writings - including those archived on this site
March 16, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
because you don't think pnac is anything but nefarious so it was intended as a slur. And because the way you used pnac lite is to say that Ivo and others are not real democrats, that they are not real critics, and that they are beholden to the hated neocons. How else is one to interpret the words "brewing the PNAC-lite they are planning to pour down the country's throat". repeatedly on this site those of us who articulate a Clintonista position are accused of being imperialists and so on. It's getting to the point where it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation any more.
March 16, 2006 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Clintonistas" also attacked Serbia for no rational reason with the result that the entire region is now a hotbed of drugs and weapons smuggling and worse.
The "Clintonista" in the White House at the time pardoned Marc Rich, a Zionist who currently funds the nuclear black market run by the Russian-Israeli Mafia as well as bombing Iraq for no reason but to get the Republicans off his butt for his indiscretions in the Oval Office.
The "Clintonista" currently in the Senate is calling for sanctions on Iran and just about calling for pre-emptive military strikes.
Anybody who thinks the PNAC crowd were anything but imperalist simply isn't paying attention.
Excuse me, but Democrat = Republican = War Party. None of you are fit to govern.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 17, 2006 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And because the way you used pnac lite is to say that Ivo and others are not real democrats, that they are not real critics, and that they are beholden to the hated neocons.
Well of course he is a real Democrat. Why would I deny that? He was a member of the Clinton administration, and appears to be on just about everyone's short list to be part of the next Democratic administration. He has also recently advised presidential candidate Mark Warner on foreign policy, while preserving his ties to the Clintons. I suspect he will be part of a Democratic administration if either one of those candidates wins. So while I wish it were not the case, people like Mr. Daalder clearly represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party's foreign policy establishment. There are Democrats I like and Democrats I don't like - but I never say that the ones I like are the only "real" ones.
And I didn't suggest Mr. Daalder was "beholden" to the neocons. I don't have any reason to think he owes them anything, or is somehow in their pockets. My point was that he is not very different from the neocons. He was similar enough to them that he was willing to sign a PNAC letter, even though PNC was clearly at that time the chief organ of neoconservative foreign policy advocacy. His foreign policy views seem to be very similar in their overall objectives, but smooth out some of the rough edges and provocative talk - hence my term "neocon - lite"
March 17, 2006 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink