It wasn't too long ago that Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin to explain the Bush Doctrine. She answered the question like an elementary school kid, and we'll just leave it there so my follower number doesn't continue to go down. As if I care. Sarah clearly had no idea what the Bush doctrine was and neither does 99% of America. I would venture to say that most Americans have no idea what the Obama doctrine is, but neither does Obama so it's all good.
A President always has a foreign policy philosophy, this is called a DOCTRINE. A phrase that describes various foreign policy positions held by the administration. It's a rule or guide that lets the world and Americans know where the executive branch stands when dealing with conflicts in or with other nations. The Bush doctrine was clear and concise. According to Wikipedia the non-encyclopedia encyclopedia, the Bush doctrine was:
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."
In case you missed it, the doctrine was preventative in nature and believed that democracy for the middle east would be a stabilizer against terrorism, had you read further and I had a desire to cut and paste the entire article. Google Bush doctrine and read up. A free people are a happy people and terrorists clearly have anger management issues. All joking aside, the Bush administration maintained that a free people would not feel anger at being oppressed and would in turn be less likely to embrace terrorism. To me this is crystal clear and rings true on all levels. It was essentially a human rights campaign packed with heat. Bush believed that freedom over all else was our greatest gift from God and under democracy, tyrannical fear would end and so would terrorism. Also, all nations who harbor terrorists would be acted upon pre-emptively before they attacked America like they did on 9-11. Sitting ducks no more under the Bush administration. A threat was taken seriously and so we invaded Iraq. The game was changed forever. Pure genius and quite inspiring. Rid the Middle East of tyranny and end terrorism. Makes sense to me.
So now that the Middle East is in turmoil and the desire to overthrow evil dictators is in, what is the Obama doctrine? Clearly Bush was right. Clearly Bush had a vision of what the middle east was all about. Theocracies so dominating in nature that if only a democracy could emerge and work, it would be an inspiration to all Muslim nations. Iraq has become an example of what could be for many under dictatorial rule. Other Muslim nations can and should be free from oppressive dictatorships, so by protest and rebellion it has begun. Why should the lefts plight for human rights end with the slaves of the past? And why does liberalism and more specifically why do DEMOCRATS, shut the door on real human suffering by only speaking of it and not offering real fire powered solutions? Because they lack moral clarity in the face of soft core slavery called racism and economic equality. America is too fixated on the non-oppressed to acknowledge those who really suffocate under the feet of fascism. Their causes are so jaded by imaginary cynicism towards American illusions of grandeur, that they think people on welfare actually have it bad. There is the other problem of war. They are so against taking the bastards out, that America is seen as a big pathetic loser that revels in their own freedom while the rest of the world lives in shackles and chains. A liberals philosophy is twisted and completely maniacal. On it's face they pretend to hate oppression but in reality they love the oppressor, and worship idealism. The left envies dictators who rule and dominate, it's what they want. The nanny state is liberalism's wet dream.
Thank Bush for the call of freedom in the Near East. Thank Bush for planting the seed of democracy in Iraq. It isn't perfect, but Rome wasn't built in a day. There is clearly room for Islam and freedom to co-exist. The rumblings of sweet overthrow are raging in the middle east and for that you can thank the clear doctrine of humanity, rather than a passive one that cowers to tyranny. Who should the rebels want as President of the United States to assist in their plight? Not this one. Not the one whose doctrine consists of no clear message, no definitive action, and certainly no help other than Presidential scoldings and pleas to the international community. Obama's foreign doctrine is one of negotiation and appeasement. It is passive in nature and the administration has offered no clear statement as to what it, their doctrine, is. This is the only statement stating what Obama as commander in chief embraces as foreign policy:
"I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century..."
Thank you Mr. President for that highly thought out and intricate piece of meat. The Obama administration after winning the election, went on to develop a National Security strategy that included dropping the phrase "global war on terror" and "enemy combatant". Adopted was a strategy to reach out to Muslim nations as friends to counter fears that the US was at war with Islam. A massive marketing strategy emerged to portray America as a new and softer country with its new President. Obama became the most naive President to ever adorn the Oval office. Obama weakened America, Obama weakened himself. President Obama will not be known for his foreign policy prowess, but he will be known for his foreign policy impotence. Obama's soft approach to rogue nations has put a lot of Americans at bay. At the same time, the left has been left, confused. We are still in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is not even close to being over. Gitmo remains open and though on the store front the sign reads, we are sorry for being so mean, the inside remains the same...only much, much, much less intimidating. Perhaps Obama miscalculated his charisma. Maybe he thought his liberalism would be enough to foster a more likable America. After all according to most liberals, they are superior thinkers and relate to the world better than the gun toting George Bush. But what can the left say when the world wants to rid themselves of leftist ideals? Get your gun and help out the rebels? No. It's don't shoot the peeps or I will call some other world leaders to put "pressure" on you dictators who like me. The poor Obama administration is always in conflict...with itself.
Now the Middle East is seeking refuge from tyranny while our President walks a tight rope of pleasing all sides. Remember when liberals were for human rights? Remember when it was the left who fought for the oppressed in the 1960's? Not any more. It is the left who ignores the plight of the human in chains, all in the name of peace. There is NO peace under a tyrant. Stop singing about how Obama promotes peace. He promotes dictatorships and tyranny beyond our borders. Inside our borders he walks a fine line of American freedom vs. American economic lynching. There is no peace when human rights are offered by passive Presidents who do nothing but give loving lip service to the oppressors. Liberalism understands not the state of the world and Obama's naivete is a dangerous and impotent doctrine.
At the end of the day, George W. Bush will continue to be a far more superior, principled and decisive policymaker. And that makes me smile.