I'm given to understand that this is something of a current issue, so I thought I'd remind readers of Winds' key coverage. It's definitely a multi-faceted doctrine, as just about all geopolitical doctrines are at that level. These posts cover its various aspects and - dare we say - nuances:
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
I would have liked Charlie Gibson to quote Joe Katzman circa 9/04 when answering the question.
When I first heard the interview I though the Bush doctrine was "democracy promotion," and more specifically that it is in the national security interest of the United States to promote freedom and liberty (in the Middle East).
On further reading and reflection though, the better answer is that the doctrine asserts that the U.S. will not distinguish between terrorist organizations and the countries that sponsor them. That was the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan and it is not an obvious one.
I do not think that pre-emptive action is the Bush doctrine since that premise (as noted by John Kerry in 2004) has longer, bi-partisan roots. I think the most that can be said is that Bush reinforced its importance in the emerging world condition.
I'd think it is rather difficult for a major candidate to refute any of what are considered tenants of the Bush Doctrine, in theory. Practice obviously is where the rubber hits the road. And of course thats why the question to Palin was unfathomably vague and unanswerable.
The outrage over her supposed bellicosity against Russia is particularly ironic. The idea that we wouldn't rush to defend a NATO ally is far more incindiary than than that we would. I think it shows how far down the road the far left has gone that they find themselves aghast at the prospect of fufulling a treaty that is premised on mutual defense. Wasnt our respect for international institutions in question with that crowd? I'd like to hear how exactly those critics define NATO. Palin, for one, clearly understands. Her critics I honestly question.
Most of the criticism I've heard is that she would risk war with Russia by admitting Georgia to NATO, not that she would act pursuant to the Treaty.
You should have sent this to Sarah Palin last week.
This is BS. Bush Doctrine has a strategic meme. Like Blitzkrieg it has adapted to real life situations. The strategic constant is that will we now no longer wait for some to attack us. If we determine that someone is about to attack we will attack first period. She had no cognizance of the Bush doctrine and she wasn't briefed to know what it is. So how do your expect her to follow any evolution of it.