In Loving Respect of the Bush Doctrine

[nopasties]

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/post...ging_bushs_war

Call it G.W.O.T. or J.I.H.A.D., Obama is waging Bush's war

Fri, 08/07/2009 - 5:47pm
By Kori Schake
Assistant to the President John Brennan gave a speech yesterday, ostensibly a landmark address. He assured listeners that "the fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining -- indeed, distorting-our entire national security and foreign policy, but rather serving as a vital part of those larger policies."
It is tempting to lampoon Brennan's remarks for the risible and solipsistic rhetoric (e.g., "like the world itself, [Obama's] views are nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.") -- or to once again express my concern that the administration might actually believe the refrain that the president "rejects the false choice between ensuring our national security and upholding civil liberties." This seems to be mistaking slogans for solutions, as Edward R. Murrow cautioned against.
But the standard for measuring Brennan's remarks is what they contain that is new policy. With the exception of Guantanamo, which the president has declared he'll close but six months later has not yet provided a program to achieve, the program sounds remarkably like Bush administration practices. Defeat al Qaeda, check. Hold Afghanistan, check. Partnership with Pakistan, check. Sharing intelligence and training militaries in East Africa, check. Going after terrorist financing, check. Disrupting terrorist operations, check. Prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons, check. Ensure our military has the troops and the tools it needs, check. Strengthen the intelligence community, check. Defend the homeland, check.
Even in the areas Brennan was claiming radical departures from Bush policies there is striking continuity. Brennan showcased "ending the war in Iraq" as an administration achievement. He somehow forgot to mention the glide path was set by the Bush administration in signing the Statue of Forces Agreement before President Obama was even elected. All Team Obama did was not carry out the president's campaign promise of a faster drawdown.
And in the doubling down on troops in Afghanistan without a political or economic or justice or drug strategy to bring a "whole of government approach" to the problem actually out-Bushes the Bush administration. Former Vice President Cheney would have much more damagingly rebuked Obama's approach to national security by pointing out it is no different from Bush's.
The only actual variance with Bush administration practice I found is rejecting the name "war on terror." There is considerable merit in this approach. Referring to a "war on terror" gives our enemies a validation we should be smart enough to deny them. It offends many who want to support us. Our preoccupation is not shared by other countries that are not the target of al Qaeda.
But it is unfair to the Bush administration to suggest they were not engaged with the Muslim world on issues of importance to those countries and societies. The Bush administration rightly understood the crisis in the so-called "Muslim world" about tolerance and modernity. Brennan says this challenge is "ultimately not a military operation but a political, economic, and social campaign to meet the basic needs and legitimate grievances of ordinary people." Absolutely right. Which is why the Bush administration put so much effort into issues like democracy promotion, poverty alleviation, free trade, security assistance, and disease eradication.
Brennan was not disavowing that we are fighting a war, nor that the enemy has a virulent religious ideology and uses the killing of civilians as a tactic. In fact, he reaffirmed it, quoting President Obama saying "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." Brennan himself continues, "and to win this war against al Qaeda, the administration continues to be unrelenting, using every tool in our toolbox and every arrow in our quiver."
So the objective is no different, the full range of tools will continue to be used ... only the name will be different. The fun will start when administration begins looking for some shorthand way to describe what is not the "global war on terror." The best entry into the acronym contest so far comes (not surprisingly) from a witty soldier I know in the military's Special Operations Command: the Joint Interagency Homeland Active Defense, or JIHAD.
Let us hope the Obama administration really is changing so little in their approach to fighting the terrorist threats our country faces, and that they don't believe their own rhetoric about there being no trade-offs between our values and our security. A change in the "war on terror" language is beneficial. But they should not misunderstand that good people are daily making decisions in which they have to make trade-offs between our values and the risks to our society. The Obama administration's own language creates serious problems for these people as they protect the rest of us. As no less an expert on terror than Leon Trotsky tells us, "you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

Obama seemingly has changed little in American foreign policy. He changed the marketing strategy but the policies seem disturbingly similar. I loath Bush but Obama for all of his campaign criticism has done little to strike a different path. Why is this? Has Obama continued Bush policy because Bush was right? Has Obama continued Bush policy because he is a practical and mainstream politician who always moderates, in this sense Obama is continuing Bush policy because we are already commited. Is Obama taking the same path as Bush? Is Obama simply veering American foreign policy in a different direction?

[Vulso]

Yeah. It's like an orange when Bush has it, Obama just paints it a different color. Now instead of an ORANGE orange, we have a RED orange, or whatever color have you.

[mrmouth]

For all intensive purposes, I think Obama truly believed he would do more to change policies that Bush put in place. But that likely changed the day he was sworn in, and in the weeks that followed, once he was able to digest what only he, his national security team, and the senate intelligence committee are privy to, on a daily basis.

It is stuff that will keep you up at nights by all previous accounts of former presidents.

Anyhow, I don't see the intelligence in debating this. We are all so far outside of the loop, that making any educated judgments simply is not possible. You can hate it all you want, but understand that you don't actually know what is going on, by any stretch of the imagination.

[nopasties]

For all intensive purposes, I think Obama truly believed he would do more to change policies that Bush put in place. But that likely changed the day he was sworn in, and in the weeks that followed, once he was able to digest what only he, his national security team, and the senate intelligence committee are privy to, on a daily basis.

It is stuff that will keep you up at nights by all previous accounts of former presidents.

Anyhow, I don't see the intelligence in debating this. We are all so far outside of the loop, that making any educated judgments simply is not possible. You can hate it all you want, but understand that you don't actually know what is going on, by any stretch of the imagination.

I respect that.+rep It puzzles me a little to see how similar Obama's strategy is with a man I spent so much time hating.
Legitimate issue but us armchair folks really can not scratch the surface of what is going on.

[Admiral Piett]

For all intensive purposes, I think Obama truly believed he would do more to change policies that Bush put in place. But that likely changed the day he was sworn in, and in the weeks that followed, once he was able to digest what only he, his national security team, and the senate intelligence committee are privy to, on a daily basis.

It is stuff that will keep you up at nights by all previous accounts of former presidents.

Anyhow, I don't see the intelligence in debating this. We are all so far outside of the loop, that making any educated judgments simply is not possible. You can hate it all you want, but understand that you don't actually know what is going on, by any stretch of the imagination.

Then it's the government's responsibility to reveal the truth about situations to the people. This so-called information gap between the government and the populace is rivaled only by the common sense gap between the populace and the government.

[jankren]

Obama has no choice.

Trillions have been spent in the War and he cant just pull out with nothing coming out of it.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I think Obama has realized that Bush's policies weren't so dumb after all once he got privy to the top secret information. And since we are already engaged, the easiest thing is to continue doing like we have been.

[jankren]

Bush's policies were dumb. But if USA completely evacuated out of Iraq now all those trillions of dollars would vanish into thin air just like that. So at least they need to stabilize Iraq and maintain friendly 'puppet' government for future reliable oil supply which was the original mission.

Of course Im talking from American POV.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Bush's policies were dumb. But if USA completely evacuated out of Iraq now all those trillions of dollars would vanish into thin air just like that. So at least they need to stabilize Iraq and maintain friendly 'puppet' government for future reliable oil supply which was the original mission.

Of course Im talking from American POV.

And you would know an American POV as an Indonesian...

We didn't go in for oil. We have spent enough money on Iraq to buy trillions of barrels of oil. This is an absurd idea.

[Jexiel]

And you would know an American POV as an Indonesian...

We didn't go in for oil. We have spent enough money on Iraq to buy trillions of barrels of oil. This is an absurd idea.

It could be argued that one of the reasons was to secure Israel. As soon as the Iraq war began Afghanistan was almost forgotten by the Bush administration and there was a significant push to take out Iran as well (remember McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"?). I think the plan backfired once the Bushies realized Iraq was not a "slam, wham, thank you ma'am" deal; it seems the Bushies themselves were misled by certain Iraqis-in-exile (Chalabi?). Take out Iran and Iraq and Israel can roll around knocking heads at will.

Now Iran has an even a bigger incentive to develop nuclear weapons since they know they have Israel's undivided attention. No other country in the region remotely threatens the Kingdom of Jerusalem. All one needs to do is who stands to gain the most from this whole situation.

What really gets me is that if you claim 3 countries form an "Axis of Evil" and 2 of them are clearly developing nuclear weapons why do you go for the one that the majority agrees is not developing them?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

It could be argued that one of the reasons was to secure Israel. As soon as the Iraq war began Afghanistan was almost forgotten by the Bush administration and there was a significant push to take out Iran as well (remember McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"?). I think the plan backfired once the Bushies realized Iraq was not a "slam, wham, thank you ma'am" deal; it seems the Bushies themselves were misled by certain Iraqis-in-exile (Chalabi?). Take out Iran and Iraq and Israel can roll around knocking heads at will.

Now Iran has an even a bigger incentive to develop nuclear weapons since they know they have Israel's undivided attention. No other country in the region remotely threatens the Kingdom of Jerusalem. All one needs to do is who stands to gain the most from this whole situation.

No doubt Israel was taken into consideration, but I don't think that was the primary reason.

What really gets me is that if you claim 3 countries form an "Axis of Evil" and 2 of them are clearly developing nuclear weapons why do you go for the one that the majority agrees is not developing them?

Saddam had already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and Kurds, and had tried to develop more bio and nuclear weapons in the past, so I wouldn't consider him a pushover. Intelligence said that he had nuclear weapons (and maybe he did and sent them to Syria), so we went in. Iraq was a small weak country and we didn't know the occupation would turn out like it did. Perfect hindsight is not available when you make decisions; sometimes the things you do turn out not so good.

Also, keep in mind that by having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we surround Iran. I don't know if that was done intentionally, but I'm sure it made the Iranian dictator and his cronies uncomfortable.

[Amry]

but I'm sure it made the Iranian dictator and his cronies uncomfortable.

... which would make any attempt by the Iranian government to procure nuclear weapons to be an understandable move towards self-defense.

Yeah, good job curbing the spread of WMDs there.

[Watchman]

Intelligence said that he had nuclear weapons (and maybe he did and sent them to Syria), so we went in.

*Whose* 'intelligence' ? Certainly not that of the UN inspectors whose damn job it was to check regularly... you know, the guys the Bush regime subjected to a smear campaign for not agreeing with their wildly exaggerated claims.
IIRC US intel wasn't exactly 100% certain about the issue either, but since when did that stop The Amazing Bush And His Magical Mystery Tour ?

Iraq was a small weak country and we didn't know the occupation would turn out like it did.

You didn't need to look further than the map or teh Wiki to learn Iraq wasn't exactly Kuwait you know. And none of that excuses a complete failure to have plans for the consolidation and rebuilding phase.

Fact is, the GOP pretty much went in with the wistful hope the Iraqis would welcome them cheering and for some reason fix everything for them.

[Watchman]

We didn't go in for oil. We have spent enough money on Iraq to buy trillions of barrels of oil. This is an absurd idea.

Yeah, you went in because the guys who made the decision were bloody stupid and the morons in the audience cheered them on.

[jankren]

We didn't go in for oil.

Yeah, it was solely for the liberation of the Iraqi people.

We have spent enough money on Iraq to buy trillions of barrels of oil.

Thats because apparently Iraqis didnt turn out welcoming the invasion by throwing flowers on the street as what God told Bush would happen.

The Iraq War was expected to be instant like the First Gulf War.

Go in -> Install puppet -> Get out -> Secure oil supply (not necessarily free).

[cfmonkey45]

Thats because apparently Iraqis didnt turn out welcoming the invasion by throwing flowers on the street as what God told Bush would happen.

The Iraq War was expected to be instant like the First Gulf War.

Go in -> Install puppet -> Get out -> Secure oil supply (not necessarily free).

Which is, of course, why 70% of the oil in Iraq goes to China. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it.

[jankren]

Which is, of course, why 70% of the oil in Iraq goes to China. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it.

Because plan did not go as intended. The Iraqi Govt was not supposed to be so independent.

Department of Energy statistics tell an entirely different story. If your scenario was based on a factual paradigm, then we would have invaded Venezuela instead. Hell, if Mexico and Canada were not so economically interdependent on the US, we would have invaded them.

Take it easy,

Come on, there is something called Real Politik.

Even when you play a videogame like Europa Universalis you know that you cant just invade some random country of strategic interest without any pretext.

Saddam Hussein's dark history is the perfect tool to be exploited as casus belli. The Bush Administration needed to invade quickly before the opportunity was lost because his throne was about to pass on to one of his sons.

[Gertrudius]

Thats because apparently Iraqis didnt turn out welcoming the invasion by throwing flowers on the street as what God told Bush would happen.

The Iraq War was expected to be instant like the First Gulf War.

Go in -> Install puppet -> Get out -> Secure oil supply (not necessarily free).

Department of Energy statistics tell an entirely different story. If your scenario was based on a factual paradigm, then we would have invaded Venezuela instead. Hell, if Mexico and Canada were not so economically interdependent on the US, we would have invaded them.

Take it easy,

[Last Roman]

We didn't go in for oil. We have spent enough money on Iraq to buy trillions of barrels of oil. This is an absurd idea.

I don't think we'll ever really know why we went into Iraq.

That said, I wont say anything more on the matter; I'm tired of Iraq threads.

[Gumpfendorfer]

Obama seemingly has changed little in American foreign policy. He changed the marketing strategy but the policies seem disturbingly similar. I loath Bush but Obama for all of his campaign criticism has done little to strike a different path. Why is this? Has Obama continued Bush policy because Bush was right? Has Obama continued Bush policy because he is a practical and mainstream politician who always moderates, in this sense Obama is continuing Bush policy because we are already commited. Is Obama taking the same path as Bush? Is Obama simply veering American foreign policy in a different direction?

Nonsensical, what did he expect, pulling out of Afghanistan? It's a flawed attempt to wash away the political right mistakes.

Bush has neglected Afghanistan all the time with disastrous results, His team was braindead on Afghanistan.

Obama has decided to make a major effort. A total overhaul of the strategy in Afghanistan, including a diplomatic offensive to get the regional players sort out their differences. Bush gave Musharraf carte blanche, "a great friend and ally." Go figure.

The check list which indeed is similar as Bush is the same for the simple reason that those are the issues that need to be addressed. It does not mean that the issues are addressed in the same manner.

It's utterly simplistic to think Obama would have walked away from most of those issues, it's also utterly simplistic to think he will do later on. He can't.

WHEN Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, someone asked what worried him most. Famously, he replied 'events, dear boy, events.' In other words, the world's tendency to spring surprises when you're least expecting them.

For the most part of his or hers time any president is taken away with silly daily events such as drinking beers with police officers who mistakenly arrested someone. And it eats away time to develop and implement new policies. That's more of a reason than the usual arguments of "once he is in office, he'll have to deal with reality."

If one president was bad at facing reality it was Bush, really, really bad.