| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| George W. Bush -- grand strategist |
| 2007-03-29 |
| The Boston Globe — the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times — ran an article last week that Bush critics may wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history. The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press) to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University. The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment. If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history. As the Globe article describes in an interview with Mr. Gaddis: "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests, and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy." According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion — filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security. FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the second grand strategy and gained American security by establishing free markets and self-determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Mr. Gaddis observed. That brings the professor to George W.Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is now. He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945." It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of Mr. Bush — the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval — is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system." In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston Globe quotes Mr. Gaddis: "So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001." In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Mr. Gaddis wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War." Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #10 What ineptitude! FDR never developed a "grand strategy." Although he was ahead of the American people in the need to confront fascism, the fact that it took Pearl Harbor to seal it, is a testament to his lack of a sellable strategy. The Yalta - executed while US soldiers were dying - sellout speaks volumes. However, the Truman Doctrine (confrontation by means of either containment or liberation, in recognition of Churchill's apt description of the "Iron Curtain"), WAS a Grand Strategy. I argue that Teddy Roosevelt's "Strong Man" alliance system, which supported authoritanian regimes as long as they held back US enemies, was also a Grand Strategy. Further, Jimmy Carter's repudiation of both the containment and alliance with strong allies, in place of US moral disarmament and agitation for "human rights" abroad, was also a Grand Strategy, which produced the infamous Soviet winning streak of the mid to late 'seventies. While it is true that President Bush declared a distinct doctrine, favoring US "pre-emption" of enemy armament and aggression, he saddled it with a Carter-like export of "democracy" to states where that system is believed to challenge the sovereignty of "god" and his successors ("caliphs"). But, Bush has appeared to veer to the Teddy Roosevelt Doctrine. Lately, he pushed monthly meetings between the government of Israel and Fatah elements, thus, excluding Hamas and Hizbollah. If I am right, a Fatah "Strong Man" will crush those 2 mortal enemies of the American people. I also predict that, in stark contrast to the separate agreements that Bush made with Taliban-lite and Shiite clerics in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's Ayatollahs will hit directly when the US attacks Iran. Iran' missile capabilities will lead to a drastic escalation, and the US nuclear trigger will be pulled for the first time since World War II. An alliance will be made with professional military elements, and a Strong Man will emerge. It is my hope: there will be a bloodbath, and Ayatollah and Basij animals will be liquidated. My "freedom" doesn't include Islamofascists. I don't want them to vote: I want them to die. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-03-29 22:06 |
| #9 Tony Blankley is on the Right himself; I took the remark as sarcastic-- as in, "the liberal fossils at the Globe couldn't pretend to ignore this one" or some such. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-29 20:41 |
| #8 "put-up job by an obscure right-wing author" Does the inherent prejudice in this statement - so institutionalized it just slips from the tongue - not bother anyone but me? |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-03-29 20:34 |
| #7 At this point, I'm far to jaded to think that it is possible for ANYTHING in the Boston Globe to be positive towards Bush without approval at the highest ranks in the Democratic party. Dean Esmay(?) had a similar article today. Perhaps it means that the Democrats have realized that hate-America, cuddle to despotic thugs is not a winning strategy so they are now going to hold their nose and wave the flag; at least until they win in 2008. If you start to see all of the other usual suspects and lemmings spouting this same rhetoric, then you can be sure this is a calculated strategy decision that allows them to move to the center in order to win. |
| Posted by: Fester Jomons8988 2007-03-29 20:01 |
| #6 Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-03-29 19:39 |
| #5 At the very start of his administration, Saturday Night Live made fun of Bush by suggesting that he had a "strategery", instead of a strategy. Ironically, the word "strategery" may eventually be defined as a multi-dimensional form of strategy promulgated by Bush that is so superior to either linear or two-dimensional strategy that it is in a class by itself. That literally, when a plan is made based on "strategery", it will *always* defeat even the most brilliant ordinary strategists elsewhere in the world. It is as if the rest of the world plans in 'Flatland', and George W. Bush and his planners know of and use the 3rd dimension. He always wins, but his opponents never know how he wins. Ironically, he seems to apply this "strategery" almost exclusively to international affairs. His domestic policy, at least for the first 3/4ths of his two terms, looked like an odd reflection of that advocated on and off by US Presidents from Grant to McKinley: that it is the duty of the Congress to run the country, and that of the President to execute their wishes--not lead. In retrospect, it was in error, as the republican Congress horribly abused its power, and was accordingly punished for it at the polls. An important element of this was first that until stem cells, he vetoed nothing that Congress passed. However, he frequently added a "Presidential signing statement" to each bill, indicating how he interpreted it, and intended to carry it out. I suspect that he was trying to force Congress to assert itself more in running the government. For too long, powerful and egotistical Presidents and the bureaucracy have gained too much power at the expense of Congress. He figured to force them to take responsibility, instead of just being a Presidential exchequer and pork factory. Perhaps in the long run, it was part of his domestic "strategery", but one that will take many years to come to fruition. Congress does need to take more authority away from the President and the bureaucracy; we have become spoiled by having too king-like a series of Presidents. Karl Rove seemed to be a master of "strategery" until the recent elections; but even that might be deceptive. Enigmatically, several republicans who had lost close votes were encouraged to *not* contest those votes and to gracefully concede. If I was a democrat strategist, this would make me very, very concerned. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-29 19:38 |
| #4 I believe on the world strategic stage, he will be regarded as a visionary and a grand strategist. On the domestic side, less than average. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-03-29 18:31 |
| #3 We won't even have to wait for future generations to regard Pelosi and Reid as traitors to this nation. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-29 18:22 |
| #2 I firmly believe that future generations will regard GWB as a visionary Those were my words almost exactly when my son asked me how I felt about W after the sh*tstorm and BDS really started over Iraq. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-03-29 18:06 |
| #1 I'll be reading that book, for one. I firmly believe that future generations will regard GWB as a visionary, despite his current dismissal by lefty critics. |
| Posted by: Abu Chuck al Ameriki 2007-03-29 17:51 |