BushDoctrine

Profile Schedule Directions Contacts Links Papers Blog Home

The Bush Doctrine - ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism
by Charles Krauthammer

The article "The Bush Doctrine - ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism" by columnist Charles Krauthammer appeared in The Weekly Standard on June 4, 2001. The article was written in the thoughtful style that has become the signature of Mr. Krauthammer.

Members of the the International Issues Forum discussed the article and as would be expected the subject matter remains a topic of ongoing debate. This page presents some of the opinions of members of the group. True to the character of the group, the material is intended to stimulate discussion.

Please follow the hyperlink at the title of the article above to read the original article. In addition, an article on "The Bush Doctrine" by Charles Krauthammer appeared in The Washington Post on Page A25, Friday, May 4, 2001.

Bill Bozarth replies:

Krauthammer has always written well, and this essay is extremely well structured. What I find most interesting at the higher level is that the vision of a presidential administration is articulated less clearly by members of that administration, and is best put forth by a well-traveled conservative writer, a noted spokesman for the ruling class. Like George Will and William F. Buckley in years past, Krauthammer is an intellectual who specializes in soft-selling a very conservative agenda crafted to preserve the interests of a very narrow group as a message that the masses can get behind. I have to wonder whether Krauthammer is mirroring US foreign policy as the administration meant it, or is he the one who is helping them make sense out of several disparate issues that Bush used to build the coalition that elected him?

In particular, his paper starts with a generally valid premise that no nation has ever been so dominant in the world, and that we should go about our business with this unquestioned preeminence at the heart of our national policy. He distinguishes current day America from the empires of yesterday who sought to dominate the world. “Unlike other hegemons and would-be hegemons, we do not entertain a grand vision of the world.” Instead of seeking to engage and rule, we will engage only as a balancer of last resort. Krauthammer’s (and supposedly Bush/Cheney’s) corps of believers seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, the Bush crowd wants to present themselves as the anti-Clintons, the people who will not engage our military in peacekeeping missions, not sap our strength and deter us from the from the real purpose of defending the vital interests of the United States. It is hard to take that posture, and at the same time, agree to be the balancer of last resort in every corner of the world. At the end of the day, our policy on intervening in future Bosnias will not change greatly under President Bush. We will allow ourselves to be drawn into other people’s conflicts. We will probably do so only when there is no risk of confronting any really significant adversaries. The debate to limit ourselves to operations that only threaten us directly will not really take place any more with Republicans in the White House than it did with Democrats, and I think that’s a shame. We have made quite a thriving business out of extended military engagement, and no elected leader wants to tackle the daunting chore of turning off the spigot.

Krauthammer takes the opportunity in cobbling together the “Bush Doctrine” to rationalize the Administration’s positions on National Missile Defense and the Kyoto Accords. This reminds me of my days in the marketing organization of IBM when I was told to come up with a message that made a hodge-podge of overlapping product families appear to the customers as a well thought-out set of complementary offerings. Such is the collection of rather strange bedfellows that comprise the issues that Bush’s election team used to squeak into office. Republican positions on missile defense and global warming concerns are structured to reward those who would a.) go forward on the first even though the technology is unproven and b.) hold off on taking aggressive action on the second, even though most scientists tell us that failing to act will have negative consequences on future generations.

The hawks within the Bush team led by Donald Rumsfeld, are gung-ho to deploy NMD now, despite the fact that the technology is clearly not ready. They even acknowledge that the missile shield could not guarantee stopping the rogue nation’s missile assault on us. We are ask to accept the fact that simply making it harder to hit us is sufficient reason to spend the hundreds of billions that deployment will cost.

Here’s my number one reason why I think this whole thing is crazy, and just an exercise in keeping people employed and paying back Boeing, Lockheed, TRW, Sylvania and others for the great support they have given certain office-seekers over the years:

If a terrorist group or nation-state really wants to throw caution to the wind and take out their frustrations on the U.S. why in the world would they do it by firing a guided missile? We would know where it came from, and we would certainly retaliate with full force. It is precisely the assured destruction of anyone taking such a bold move that prevents them from doing it today and would prevent it in the future. As Thomas Friedman wrote, the greater danger is the mortar launched from a row-boat in the East River than an ICBM launched from thousands of miles away. Krauthammer says the Bushies want to bury MAD and the ABM treaty along with it. It may not be mutual, but assured destruction by the US remains the best way to keep adversaries in line. It’s much more effective than the chancy technologies of NMD.

For that matter, would we even hesitate to preempt any preparation to fire missiles on us? Krauthammer refers to the famous Israeli raid on the Iraqi’s nuclear reactor in 1981. That remains in my mind as one of the best uses of power in modern times. What American President twenty years from now would make a choice to “let the missile shield stop ‘em,” when given evidence of an adversary preparing to launch on us? Our power to go in and take out the missile before they put it on the pad, while not certain, gives me better reason to sleep at night than a lot of equipment set up to “hit a bullet with a bullet.”

The US cannot prevent tyrants from using the big lie to convince desperate people that we are their enemy. We can, however, conduct ourselves in such a way that we give them less reason to legitimately question our motives in the world. It’s unanimous on the subject of NMD. Our allies and adversaries alike tell us it’s the wrong thing to do. Sometimes even unipolar, preeminent enlightened hegemons should listen and learn.

The US is uniquely positioned to strongly influence the world. I agree with the author on this. It is probably also wise not to shrink from the role that destiny has thrust upon us. The vision for that role in my mind means using the power we have to lead by example. The vision articulated here sounds more like an after-the-fact rationale for a set of pro-business policies that are shortsighted at best and dangerously destabilizing at worst.

Bill Bozarth 6/25/01

Written by William H. Bozarth. Bill Bozarth is 58 years old and was born in Arkansas. He is a graduate of Columbia University. Bill is retired from IBM and has worked for other companies in the computer industry. He is now a freelance writer and teacher. Having lived and worked in Europe, he has been a resident of Atlanta since 1988, and participates regularly in the International Issues Forum discussion group.