Bush Doctrine--Intermission

Norman Podhoretz writes on the 'greatly exaggerated' death of the Bush Doctrine. He comes to the conclusion that Bush is still committed, and that by 2009 the tenets of the Bush Doctrine will be untouchable pillars of US foreign policy. On Iran:

But it beggars belief that Bush decided to go along with the European approach to Iran because he suddenly discovered that there is wisdom in “hoping for the best” and putting “our faith in the word of tyrants.” To me (pace Richard Perle), it has seemed more likely that he has once again been walking the last diplomatic mile, exactly as when he spent so many months and so much energy working to get the UN to endorse an invasion of Iraq. The purpose, now as then, is to expose the futility of diplomacy where the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Iranian mullocracy are concerned, and to show that the only alternative to accepting the threats they pose is military action.

Robert Kagan—a neoconservative who has not given up on Bush—puts this well in describing the negotiations as “giving futility its chance.” Kagan also entertains the possibility that the negotiations are not merely a ploy on Bush’s part, and that his “ideal outcome really would be a diplomatic solution in which Iran voluntarily and verifiably abandoned its [nuclear] program.” However that may be, once having played out the diplomatic string, Bush will be in a strong political position to say, along with Senator John McCain, that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb—and not just to endorse that assessment but to act on it.

Podhoretz makes the same claim I do: most people who are complaining about Bush mistake prudence for weakness, and strategic trade-offs for defeats. It is an uncharitable, and unimaginative, criticism.

One of the 'proofs' that Bush still believes in his own doctrine is how successful one can be predicting US action when one stays within confines of the doctrine's logical universe. For instance, one of the doctrine's goals is long-term democracy and stability in the Middle East. Therefore, it was obvious early on that Bush would protect democracy in Lebanon by avoiding an extended war that traumatized and radicalized the Lebanese people (check). And yet, because the pathology of terrorism is to be fought wherever it rears its ugly head, it was also obvious that Bush would seek to buy Israel time to punish Hezbollah and change the strategic situation on her northern border (check). Because Bush wants to confront Iran with an international consensus, it was obvious that France would be made to feel the senior partner on the lesser issue of Lebanon (check). And now, because Iran, the most dangerous terrorist-supporting regime in the world, is openly pursuing nuclear weapons while making unembarrassed, blood-curdling threats, it is obvious that Bush will act on those threats before they have a chance to mature.