The Bush Doctrine, whassup with that?
I find the central assertion of the doctrine, as well as the criticism of said assertion to be a bit absurd. The notion that the US will be able to maintain its hegemony as the one superpower through the use of force is quite ludicrous. A cursory examination of history shows that no country, however strong, managed to maintain a perpetual hegemony through its military might (or any might for that matter). In that sense, stating that the world is a better place because we are the biggest kid of the block and so we will actively discourage other countries from acquiring a military capability that could rival ours is plain silly. On the other hand, it is equally ludicrous to assume that a country that has reached the position of hegemony will not do its best to maintain it. In a sense, the Bush doctrine is a bit naïve, but makes perfect sense; its efficacy will eventually kick the bucket, but so will all of us. What might be surprising, and considered in bad taste, is such an open parading of our intentions. While it may not necessarily agree with my personal sensibilities, it may be just the type of posturing that radical Islamists will take seriously, I don’t know. After all, after we showed unbridled aggression in Afghanistan, the Pan Arab press was full of articles on how serious and right the Americans are – it was quite amusing, actually. So, the maven kopfs in the White House may have decided that by stating that we will not hesitate to whip into shape anyone whom we deem a threat will work to stymie our enemies. If it does, more power to them (the White House, not the enemies). But let’s not get all high and mighty about the doctrine – there is nothing particularly new or innovative about it – it is a policy that has been and will continue to be practiced by anyone who’s got any muscle.
8:03:37 AM 
|
|
