George W. Bush -- grand strategist

I think the professor should spend some time in Iraq right now before he hails Bush as the next FDR. If that is what Bush wants to do with the rest of the world then the whole world will be a hell hole.

Furthermore, If all that is true and that is really what most leaders and past leaders think we should do, then no wonder the world and in particular Arabs hates us and thinks we are a bunch of colonizationial bullies. Who are we to arrange the world to our own satisfaction?

"... colonizational bullies..." ????

All countries attempt, in so far as they are able, to influence events that affect them to protect their interests and security. There is nothing new or original in this. Throughout history dominant powers have worked hard to ensure their own stability and prevent the emergence of strong, hostile rivals. Nothing new here either. The Ottoman Empire did this, as did the earlier Islamic Caliphates. France, Germany, Spain, Russia, the late Habsburg Empire, and most prominently the British Empire all devoted great energy to foiling their rivals and preserving a favorable (to them) balance of power. It is remarkable only that you evidently believe otherwise.

It is remarkable that you don't recognize the irony in that paragraph.

As did the Germans and Japanese in the early twentieth century. They woudl appear to be the heroes of the current admin, and the toadies who drool after them.

No irony. Merely demonstrable fact. All nations and individuals attempt to preserve their continued life. This is not a criterion on which to make distinctions between those worthy of admiratiopn and those not so worthy.

the nature of systems is that they may continue to operate in failure mode, indefinitely.

Well I never, looks like all this time I've been misunderestimating him.

nah Adrain, you've just bean listening to him with Kaldeidoscope ears.(It's a common malady) you see, the problem for many of us begins with R. Regan saying "big government is not the solution, it is the problem" and then this week in Missouri George W says "the Dems want to repeal my tax cuts so they can grow more big government" while actually federal government has grown more under George W in 3 years than it did under Clinton in 8 years. And yet there continue to be people that still think George W is a Republican.

bookmark

Re: George W. Bush -- grand strategist


Here is the problem, The collapse of the Soviet Union required us to "think aknew" (to paraphrase Lincoln) But Bush and the cabal around him and his supporters cannot. The know only the cold war, and they have recreated the world they know, and in which they did well.

So to a military and naval historian starting two wars in less than four years is a great strategy. Odd, I always thought promoting peace and building economic security were better ideas. Mabye this guy can't think of the world in anything but a militaristic way.

America your "great strategist" leader has spoken. Make the pie higher!

Please… Monroe Doctrine, Jefferson's Manifest Destiny, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Truman and Eisenhower's Containment Doctrine towards the COM Intern…are these comparable to…?

Well judgment should, I guess, be reserved but so far this "Grand Strategy" has been less successful than that of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor designed to destroy most of the American Naval Fleet in the Pacific theater.

Perhaps GW might ask Tony Blankley to kindly take a sabbatical until the November choice is decided. A strategy only becomes "Grand" with the help of time and historical analysis (i.e. Hindsight).
However, since I have not read "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience", John Lewis Gaddis's effort remains to be judged on an individual subjective basis and not, at this time, by me. Indeed, this could be interesting reading.

JM

"... colonizational bullies..." ????

I knew at the time that I was probably making up a word, but it was the only way I could think of describe wanting to arrange the world or have it under your control. You know what I mean? I mean that is just not right. Other countries have a right to their own way of life and to determine their own destinies without being managed by outsiders. If we didn't do that maybe we wouldn't have to worry so much about our security.

I am not by any means saying that 9/11 was in any shape or form justified. The taking of innocent life on purpose is never justified. (I don't mean that statement as just a statement to just throw out like when someone says, "not that there is anything wrong with that" when they are denying vigorously that they are homosexuals.) I truly mean that those that were part of or just in support of that tragic event were nothing more than mass murderees.

And I agreed wholeheartedly with the war in Afghanistan. There the enemy and the cause was clearly visible. The taliban was harboring Bin Ladden who was clearly behind 9/11 as the tape showed that was later shown and the taliban refused to give him up. That was a justified war which is why we had no trouble getting allies or support from most of the world. But this dynasty building for whatever reason is not right. Its just that simple. We should use all other means to secure our safety that does not infringe on other nations rights to self solvency unless we have been attacked or have reasonable and clear and present danger and all diplomatic and other measures have been used to no effect. Which was not the case in Iraq.

As just a personal note I want to explain at the outset that I realize that my spelling is not that good (you have to get at least somewhere near right on this spellcheck), I don't know a lot of big words which is why i use a lot of words to describe what I am talking about and my grammar is not that good. However, these subjects interest me and I am in admiration of those that I have found here from both sides. That could seen as a suck up, maybe it is, nevertheless I am.

Actually, this might be profitably switched to the History Forum. Gaddis is one of those political scientists who, for the past couple of decades, has been looking for a suitable paradigm in which to view foreign policy. He found "grand strategy" (by way of Edward Luttwak and others) and has been thumping that particular tub for quite a while now. There are a lot of problems, however, with the entire "grand strategy" thesis that cannot really be covered here. Suffice it to say that Gaddis's claim is not only subject to pragmatic doubt, but it has theoretical shortcomings as well.

[edited to delete double posting: how the hell did that happen?]

Revel: I like the word colonizational and I'm sure Bush would too, as would one of his supporters (?) who recently described him in a poll as manipulatable*. (Not a made up word)

Lightwizard: I spilled my coffee and georgeob1 still didn't see it.

Georgeob1: look at the list of countries you made, um, how did that strategy turn out for them?


The thing is in all this discussion of Bush's grand stategery (pronounced Stuh-tee-gur-ee) nowhere is found the most profligate purveyor of Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction (not just programs but boatloads of equipment) the confessed and pardoned, Muslim terrorist Khan of Pakistan. Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world. They make a national hero out of a thief who supplied the fixings for making the possession of a dirty bomb possible for Iran, Libya and North Korea and I expect that parties in the Pakistan government are in contact with their brother Muslim Osama bin Laden, but we are still searching for the link between Al-Queda and Saddam.

How do you spell myopia?
Put it in a sentence with Grand Strategy and manipulatable.

Joe Nation


*"I think he was believing what he wanted to believe," said one respondent, Ron Perholtz, an accountant from Jupiter, Fla. "I can't say he's dishonest. He heard what he wanted to hear. He's manipulatable by [Vice President] Cheney and others." MSNBC

Human history is very old and it has not yet reached its end. Eventually every major player on the world scene, including Europe and the United States will be removed from it. We, like the other actors who have preceeded us, work to make our moment as good and as long-lasting as possible, However, none has succeeded in making his run permanent. The implicit notion that this is somehow possible is neither a source of irony or mirth, it is contrary to all that we know and foolish.

Okay, but do you see the GeorgeW is following the same path as those you mentioned?

Powerful nations have varied greatly in the effects (good or bad for themselves and others) they produced, in the duration of their power and dominance, and in the degree to which they contributed directly to something good or even better in subsequent ages. Some, like Nazi Germany were short lived, horrible in their effects, and reviled after they were gone. Others, like the British Empire, left some good behind even in places where their initial intent was only exploitation. Moreover some of their social, legal and governance principles, have been mimiced by other powers for the benefit of others. All of these powers used some of the same methods (intelligence collection, war, economic intervention) to sustain their positions and security. That, however, is hardly relevant to their worth from an historical perspective.