[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.6 Contrary to theclaims of the Baker Commission, attempts to engage rogue regimes such asIran and Syria will prove no less futile than they have in the past.Likewise,Baker s preferred strategy of propitiating Palestinian radicalism at Israel sexpense will not succeed in staving off the dangerous intersection of tyr-anny and radicalism that is the root cause of World War IV.Nor does the president s choice of Robert Gates to replace DonaldRumsfeld as secretary of Defense bode well for anyone who believes theUnited States should prevail in Iraq.Like James Baker, Gates, a close con-fidant of President George Herbert Walker Bush, comes from the realistwing of the Republican Party, which has consistently failed to appreciate Epilogue 155the critical importance of regime type, democratic regime change, and theideological dimension of international relations.Beware of veiled and not-so-veiled calls for an exit strategy.As MarkSteyn wrote:For a serious power, the correct answer to What is an exit strat-egy is: There isn t one; and there shouldn t be one, and it s a dumbexpression.The more polite response came in the President ssecond inaugural speech: The survival of liberty in our land de-pends increasingly on the survival of liberty in other lands.TheBritish went into India without an exit strategy, stayed for gen-erations, and midwifed the world s most populous democracy anda key U.S.ally in the years ahead. Which looks like the smarterapproach now? Those American conservatives the realpolitikcrowd who scorn nation-building ought to reflect on what theIndian subcontinent would look like if the British had been simi-larly skeptical: today it might well be another Araby a crazy quiltof authoritarian sultantates [sic], Hindu and Muslim, punctuatedby thug dictatorships following Baath-type local variations on Fas-cism or Marxism.7I have not yet lost hope that the president will remain faithful to theBush Doctrine.Despite the formidable and sobering difficulties Americanforces have encountered in their efforts to create a free and democratic Iraq,the United States still has a chance to achieve a decent outcome if it doesnot snatch defeat from the jaws of an attainable victory by withdrawing toosoon.We should celebrate, in particular, the Iraqi court s felicitous decisionto hang Saddam Hussein for his war crimes.The elimination of Saddamonce and for all is a necessary condition for the emergence of an Iraq thatis not a menace to its people or its neighbors.I have much greater confidence that the general principles of the BushDoctrine will endure as a guide for American foreign policy no matter whathappens in Iraq, just as the lacerating controversies over the Korean War,the Vietnam War, and détente did not invalidate the strategy of vigilantcontainment that contributed so mightily to winning the Cold War.Thereare deep practical and historical reasons for this confidence.Eventually, thegathering danger of Iran and North Korea, the global aspirations of the dic- 156 In Defense of the Bush Doctrinetators in Beijing, and the neo-authoritarian revival of Putin s Russia willreveal the grave deficiencies of any of the vaunted alternatives to the BushDoctrine, whether they are the unrealistic realism of neo- and classicalrealists, isolationism, or liberal multilateralism.What is novel about theBush Doctrine explicitly including preemption in the repertoire of pos-sible options is necessary in light of the dangerous convergence of radi-calism, tyranny, and WMD.What is familiar about the Bush Doctrine acommitment to democratic regime change as a war aim to address thereal root cause of aggression against the United States represents one ofthe most successful and noble traditions of American grand strategy sinceFranklin Roosevelt.For all the problems we face in Iraq, the Bush Doctrine has prescientlydiagnosed the danger we face and prescribed the remedy for it.SenatorJohn McCain seems to recognize that, even if others do not.8 May Presi-dent Bush and his successors have the foresight to persevere with thebest practicable grand strategy consistent with American ideals andself-interest, rightly understood.Our security, and the security of muchof the free world, depends on it. AppendixThe National Security Strategyof the United States of America,September 2002Overview of America s International StrategyThe United States possesses unprecedented and unequaled strength and influ-ence in the world.Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of afree society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, andopportunity.The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balanceof power that favors freedom.For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggleover ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.6 Contrary to theclaims of the Baker Commission, attempts to engage rogue regimes such asIran and Syria will prove no less futile than they have in the past.Likewise,Baker s preferred strategy of propitiating Palestinian radicalism at Israel sexpense will not succeed in staving off the dangerous intersection of tyr-anny and radicalism that is the root cause of World War IV.Nor does the president s choice of Robert Gates to replace DonaldRumsfeld as secretary of Defense bode well for anyone who believes theUnited States should prevail in Iraq.Like James Baker, Gates, a close con-fidant of President George Herbert Walker Bush, comes from the realistwing of the Republican Party, which has consistently failed to appreciate Epilogue 155the critical importance of regime type, democratic regime change, and theideological dimension of international relations.Beware of veiled and not-so-veiled calls for an exit strategy.As MarkSteyn wrote:For a serious power, the correct answer to What is an exit strat-egy is: There isn t one; and there shouldn t be one, and it s a dumbexpression.The more polite response came in the President ssecond inaugural speech: The survival of liberty in our land de-pends increasingly on the survival of liberty in other lands.TheBritish went into India without an exit strategy, stayed for gen-erations, and midwifed the world s most populous democracy anda key U.S.ally in the years ahead. Which looks like the smarterapproach now? Those American conservatives the realpolitikcrowd who scorn nation-building ought to reflect on what theIndian subcontinent would look like if the British had been simi-larly skeptical: today it might well be another Araby a crazy quiltof authoritarian sultantates [sic], Hindu and Muslim, punctuatedby thug dictatorships following Baath-type local variations on Fas-cism or Marxism.7I have not yet lost hope that the president will remain faithful to theBush Doctrine.Despite the formidable and sobering difficulties Americanforces have encountered in their efforts to create a free and democratic Iraq,the United States still has a chance to achieve a decent outcome if it doesnot snatch defeat from the jaws of an attainable victory by withdrawing toosoon.We should celebrate, in particular, the Iraqi court s felicitous decisionto hang Saddam Hussein for his war crimes.The elimination of Saddamonce and for all is a necessary condition for the emergence of an Iraq thatis not a menace to its people or its neighbors.I have much greater confidence that the general principles of the BushDoctrine will endure as a guide for American foreign policy no matter whathappens in Iraq, just as the lacerating controversies over the Korean War,the Vietnam War, and détente did not invalidate the strategy of vigilantcontainment that contributed so mightily to winning the Cold War.Thereare deep practical and historical reasons for this confidence.Eventually, thegathering danger of Iran and North Korea, the global aspirations of the dic- 156 In Defense of the Bush Doctrinetators in Beijing, and the neo-authoritarian revival of Putin s Russia willreveal the grave deficiencies of any of the vaunted alternatives to the BushDoctrine, whether they are the unrealistic realism of neo- and classicalrealists, isolationism, or liberal multilateralism.What is novel about theBush Doctrine explicitly including preemption in the repertoire of pos-sible options is necessary in light of the dangerous convergence of radi-calism, tyranny, and WMD.What is familiar about the Bush Doctrine acommitment to democratic regime change as a war aim to address thereal root cause of aggression against the United States represents one ofthe most successful and noble traditions of American grand strategy sinceFranklin Roosevelt.For all the problems we face in Iraq, the Bush Doctrine has prescientlydiagnosed the danger we face and prescribed the remedy for it.SenatorJohn McCain seems to recognize that, even if others do not.8 May Presi-dent Bush and his successors have the foresight to persevere with thebest practicable grand strategy consistent with American ideals andself-interest, rightly understood.Our security, and the security of muchof the free world, depends on it. AppendixThe National Security Strategyof the United States of America,September 2002Overview of America s International StrategyThe United States possesses unprecedented and unequaled strength and influ-ence in the world.Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of afree society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, andopportunity.The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balanceof power that favors freedom.For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggleover ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]