[NYTr] The Bush Doctrine: US Foreign Policy Over the Last 100 Years (Pt 1)

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

CubaNow - Aug 6, 2007
http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?&secc=12&item=3095&cont=show.php

The Bush Doctrine: American Foreign Policy Over the Past 100 Years

By Keith Bolender

Cubanow.- American foreign policy since 9/11 has come to be known as
the Bush Doctrine. The Doctrine is unique in a number of ways, as any
foreign policy is in reaction to the specific times of the day. And the
Bush Doctrine is definitely unique in the violence and unilateralism it
has shown. But while most experts stress how different the Doctrine is,
in my opinion the Bush Doctrine is simply the latest, and most
dramatic, manifestation of American foreign policy that began more than
100 years ago, and what some say started soon after the American nation
was born.

September 11 changed the world, at least that’s what America wanted us
all to believe. And it did change things, as the world rallied to
support America. It didn’t take long for that support to wither,
unfortunately, as US foreign policy asserted itself in what was
perceived to be in new and disturbing ways. Immediately after 9/11
America attacked Afghanistan, and calls for regime change in Iraq were
heard shortly after, culminating in invasion in early 2003. Along with
these military actions came Bush’s clear political message to the world
– you’re either for us or against us, which had the underlying
influence of branding anyone who attempted to bring any real and
serious understanding to 9/11 as a sympathizer of the terrorists.
Explanation was equated with support. The result was no serious
examination of the root causes of September 11 was permitted in the
mainstream national media or among the political elite.

Bush’s administration leading up to 9/11 gives some insight as to his
subsequent reactions. The early months of Bush’s presidency was noted
by his rejection of a series of international agreements – Kyoto and
the International Court among others. His attitude towards the rest of
the world was obvious – what’s good for the US we’ll keep, what isn’t
we’ll toss out. And Bush found very little international agreements to
his liking. So the stage was set for his foreign policy to be described
as unilateral, inflexible, and chauvinistic.

The era of US engagement with the international community was turning
into the administration of a world monarchy. And when 9/11 hit, Bush
was more than ready to tell the rest of the world how things are going
to change, like it or not.

Bush’s perception of diplomacy was rooted in his attempts to suppress
independent thought on those who objected to linking Iraq to 9/11, or
who questioned the validity of the government’s proof of Weapons of
Mass Destruction, or the variety of other lies they told. The benefit
of denigrating those who questioned was, with the media’s support, to
help make the subsequent invasion easier to accomplish. The ability to
marginalize all dissident reaction had various repercussions
internationally.

Among them was the shocking blow to France, caught in the cross hairs
when they had the audacity to caution against invading Iraq. American
reaction was swift and devastating --changing the name of French Fries
to Freedom Fries sure showed them. Just recently there was a report
they finally changed the name back in the White House cafeteria. But
the point was well made, when former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
called those who opposed the invasion Old Europe, and no longer
relevant. That included the United Nations. The world soon learned to
give quick lip service to US policies, otherwise they’d be put in the
“them” category by President Bush.

And the enemies of America were a lot easier to put in a box, or an
axis. America’s unilateralism, and its rejection of the United Nations
created fear and mistrust in its former allies, and outrage among its
adversaries. It has resulted in North Korea and Iran’s headlong rush to
the nuclear option. It has created more instability and fear in the
world today than at any time during the Cold War.

The culmination of a movement that gained ascendancy with the
dissolution of the Soviet Union -- the ending of the 40 year old Cold
War, and the establishment of unfettered American hegemony is the first
one of three major components of the Bush Doctrine. When the Soviet
Union collapsed in 1989, powerful elements in the American
neo-conservative movement finally saw their chance to implement the
strategies outlined in their Policy for a New American Century. These
neo-cons had to wait, however, until the year 2000 with the election of
fellow conservative President Bush, to actually put their ideas into
practice. And they have done so in an impressive way. The neo-cons who
developed these strategies got their start with President Reagan in the
1980s, and many are still familiar and in power today.

Their ideals were to re-establish America military supremacy, using
American force without restraint, bring back moral clarity to the
United States and to re-frame the world in black and white terms. It
was a way to impose an American world order that would not allow any
other country to come close to challenge them militarily or
economically. It was the blueprint for Empire.

In conjunction with this, after the 2000 election Bush formed an
influential group of foreign policy experts, known as the Vulcans. The
group was formed because Bush admitted he knew little, if anything,
about foreign policy. That’s why he assembled this group of eight to
advise and direct. The group, featuring the likes of Condoleezza Rice,
Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowitz, were all proponents of the hard line
conservative view, coming from the side that years before opposed
negotiations with the Soviets. They were all distrustful of any
international institution, fearing those groups were eroding American
sovereignty. The Vulcans were the hawks, and then they became the
chicken-hawks. It was these views that had a tremendous influence of
Bush’s black and white, us verse them mentality towards the world, and
his world view of establishing America’s unchallenged supremacy.

It was also Bush’ political makeup that led him to believe a president
should act decisively, forcefully, especially in time of crisis.
September 11 gave him his chance to act, and it fit perfectly with the
neo-cons agenda, the result was the two blending into what we now have
as the Bush Agenda.

Of the neo-cons, two who most championed the invasion of Iraq in the
days after 9/11 were Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his
subordinate Paul Wolfowitz, who later came to head World Bank. The Bank
is one of the many international financial organizations that have
pushed American economic interests, plunged third world countries into
debt, and have caused much of the opposition to international corporate
capitalism – known more familiar as globalization. Those who want to
enter the World Bank programs, and gain access to American markets,
have to play by the rules set by Washington, often terribly one-sided
in favor of the first-world, particularly the US.

The neo-cons, however, couldn’t have implemented their policies of
international hegemony just on the basis of the dissolution of the
Soviet Union. What they wanted was described in the now famous Project
for the New American Century, written in September 2000: “The process
of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to
be long one, absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

The catastrophic event came a year later. After 9/11 the neo-cons who
helped draft the Project and were part of the Bush Administration went
into immediate attack mode, confident they’d have the support of the
vast majority of the American public. In fact, Condoleezza Rice said at
the National Security Council just a few days after 9/11 – “How do we
utilize this event in order to transform American foreign policy?”

They utilized it by implementing the most onerous aspects of the Policy
for a New American Century and the National Security Strategy of 2002
-- that America would be unmatched and unchallenged in military
matters, and now was the time to project American economic and
political values on the world, through military means if necessary.

This simple, single minded policy of Empire was effectively
accomplished with the assistance and support of the national media.

In America’s eyes 9/11 shifted the tectonic plates of global power, and
now was the chance to implement what the neo-cons had been planning for
the past 15 years.

So the first component of the Bush Doctrine is the re-establishment of
American military power on a world-wide level in support of the other
two aspects. This is both unique and common to American foreign policy.
The US has always flexed its muscle; previously back in the 19th
century in Central America, where they’d toss in a gunboat at the drop
of a hat to keep the natives from getting too restless. The Vietnam War
of the 1970s was a pre-emptive conflict, one that cost millions of
lives.

In the 80s US sent its proxies under CIA control to do the fighting,
with murderous results in Latin America. Today the Bush Doctrine is
more inclined to flex its own military muscle directly and define any
who oppose as a terrorist. It is this naked display of military power
on a world-wide scale, with no regard to international opinion or
restraint that distinguishes most sharply the differences of US foreign
policy under the Bush Doctrine. It’s also the scariest and most
dangerous aspect of the Doctrine.

The second unique facet of the Bush Doctrine is the unified support of
the far right religious fundamentalists, giving the Bush Doctrine a
decisive connect with the moral authority perception so necessary for
the American psyche. The religious right has painted the War on
Terrorism, or more correctly called the War on Islamic fundamentalism,
as a religious battle. It has brought a moral sense to Bush’s “Us vs.
Them” mindset that plays very well to America’s beltway.

There’s a secondary level to this aspect that appeals to the religious
folk, and that goes back to Bush’s attempt to frame the War on Terror
as a moral crusade to defeat dangerous dictators and bring freedom and
liberty to millions of suffering. It’s the sense that what’s good for
America is good for everyone else, and that America acts only out of
benevolence and the desire to bring better things to the world. Bush
himself is born again, and his strong religious beliefs converge neatly
with the religious right.

The third aspect of the Bush Doctrine is something that has run
consistently through American foreign policy for more than 100 years –
the economic component.

The Bush Doctrine is the continuation of binding US foreign policy to
serve American economic interests. And now there is no military or
social counterbalance to moderate America’s attempts to shape the world
in their economic eyes.

In fact, the economic component is so overwhelmingly important that
there is an axiom that fits perfectly with this: The American Foreign
Policy Axiom. This is a constant colonial attitude.

If your economic system is in agreement with American requirements and
standards, the United States does not care what political system you
have. It can be the most ruthless, deadly and oppressive system, the US
will support it and offer only mild criticism for the most extreme
abuses.

If you economic system is not in agreement with American requirements
and standards, the United States will tie your economic system with
your political system and will do everything in its power to overthrow
the political system. Nothing will be credited, and all will be
criticized, no matter how trivial in comparison to other regimes.

This is the most vital, basic component of American foreign policy.
Very few politicians mention this, go figure, and of course the US
power systems – the media – rarely allow this into public discourse.
The US propaganda system is incredibly effective in accomplishing this
goal.

Does the axiom apply today? Well, when Bush’s National Security
Strategy two years ago mentioned “economic freedom” twice as many times
as “political freedom” it sure does. It doesn’t matter what political
system you have, as long as US economic interests are served. And there
is no recognition of the world economic order in regards to first world
advantages and third world disadvantages. This is the United States
waging war on the third world, on weaker states that have little option
but to take what the American’s dole out. This is not America imposing
the same harsh actions on Europe or Canada, although we’ve had our
small battles over lumber, potatoes, mad cow, Wayne Gretzky.

American economic foreign policy measures are designed to break down
and destroy trade barriers in the third world, insisting on unprotected
economies. At the same time the US continues to protect or subsidize
many aspects of its own economy, and that hypocrisy is not lost on the
rest of the world. This strategy is in place to continue to enrich the
top few at the expense of the masses. This is what the world sees as
American moral authority, and they don’t like it.

But the energy that drives the Bush Doctrine engine is – FEAR. The
never-ending terrorist warnings in a variety of different colors, the
threats of imminent terrorist attacks without giving any specifics, the
cries of other terrorist cells in the US waiting to act are
deliberately ambiguous to take best advantage of the fear factor.

Bush is an expert in playing the fear card to achieve his foreign
policy goals. September 11 gave him the opportunity to continually
invoke its horrors in order to justify his radical foreign and national
policies. Fear is a powerful emotion, and one that is usually relieved
through the actions of others. But Bush doesn’t want the fear to go
away, he wants to make sure his citizens realize they live in a
dangerous world, and that more horrors await them unless they listen to
him, and support the Republican party. It’s the “I really don’t want to
catch Osama” theory.

Even more so than President Reagan and his warnings of the Sandinista
hoards just two days drive from the Texas border, Bush has been able to
manipulate fear of the world into vital political gains. It’s a policy
that takes huge amounts of energy to maintain and drains huge amounts
of emotional energy out of the American psyche, helping to push the
average American to the attitude of just letting Bush take care of
things in this terrible world we live in, he knows best. That’s why he
can get away with shrugging off the revelation of the administration
tapping into everyone’s phone lines - -he was much angrier at the news
of the admission than of the act itself.

To be continued.