RE: Bush Doctrine
The American doctrine of preemptively striking an enemy when it becomes clear they will do us harm at the first opportunity is not new. It was just forgotten during 12 years of Bush, senior and Bubba Clinton turning a blind eye to the threat. And that doctrine is not the Bush Doctrine, no matter how many entries the neo-cons or their surrogates put in wikipedia.
The Bush Doctrine asserts that we can forcibly remove the existing government of a country that we have identified as a threat and replace it with an American-style democracy. We have attempted it twice, with mixed success in Afghanistan and with the outcome still in question in Iraq. We are considering it openly (yes, openly) as a solution to the strategic nuclear threat in Iran.
The attempt to hide behind a facade of preemptive security is a political whitewash to make this insane doctrine more palatable to the American people. The fact is that the neo-cons are actually neo-Jacobins. The Bush Doctrine is almost indistinguishable from the Brezhnev Doctrine when you replace the phrasing regarding socialism and communism with American democracy and capitalism. Indeed, when coupled with the fact that the democracy Bush seeks to export is simply American socialism, the distinction becomes even more blurred.
At first glance, the Bush Administration's borders and ports policy seems schizophrenic when examined in the context of adventurism abroad. It seems counterintuitive that we would be invading sovereign states in Mesopotamia while allowing an invasion here at home. However, when seen in the context of neo-Jacobin policy, it makes perfect sense. It is not an invasion, it is an absorption. As the demarcation of nation states that is our Southern border becomes more blurred by the traffic across it, so does the distinction of separate North American entities. Eventually Mexico will lose its identity and its states will simply become part of the United States. The Bush Doctrine will have been accomplished without firing a shot. Well, without firing many shots.
The left's bug-eyed hate Bush opposition has done nothing but strengthen the neo-Jacobins. With useful idiots like Michael Moore and most of the Hollywood elites shrilly screeching about stealing oil and enslaving Muslims, Americans like Andy who seek to remain "rational" form a bulwark of support for the neo-Jacobins' agenda. Bush purrs about security and the GOP faithful preach the gospel of the Bush Doctrine without even remembering it would have been anathema to them twenty short years ago. Bush tells them that we're fighting terror in Iraq and Afghanistan so we don't have to fight it in our streets. But the bushbots and security Moms never stop to question that. If we had a modicum of security, even half the level of the 1970s and 1980s, and a sane border policy, the idea of fighting Muslim terrorists in our streets would have been relegated to the realm of escapist fantasy. Not one of Bush's lemmings stop to consider that the World Trade Center is no longer standing because the Bush-Clinton-Bush triumvirate let the terrorists in.
I believe Bush is little more than the sock puppet he appears to be. If one examines his history, big ideas like this are quite obviously beyond him. He is exactly the vapid frat-boy, born into privilege that his detractors have portrayed. With his pretty, two-dimensional, schoolteacher wife and empty-headed daughters, he could be the yup down the block, mindlessly sliding through life on the proceeds of Mom and Dad's good fortune. Andy wanted to make much of me saying that Bush is evil, but he missed what I actually said. I said the alternative to believing Bush to be merely stupid or insane is to believe that he is evil. I believe his evil is that same little evil committed by his followers. Without a firm ideological footing, they have fallen victim to the neo-cons and their destructive agenda. When, like that of the historical Jacobins, that agenda fails or leads to disaster, Bush and his lemmings will be left shaking their heads and wondering what happened.
The Bush Doctrine asserts that we can forcibly remove the existing government of a country that we have identified as a threat and replace it with an American-style democracy. We have attempted it twice, with mixed success in Afghanistan and with the outcome still in question in Iraq. We are considering it openly (yes, openly) as a solution to the strategic nuclear threat in Iran.
The attempt to hide behind a facade of preemptive security is a political whitewash to make this insane doctrine more palatable to the American people. The fact is that the neo-cons are actually neo-Jacobins. The Bush Doctrine is almost indistinguishable from the Brezhnev Doctrine when you replace the phrasing regarding socialism and communism with American democracy and capitalism. Indeed, when coupled with the fact that the democracy Bush seeks to export is simply American socialism, the distinction becomes even more blurred.
At first glance, the Bush Administration's borders and ports policy seems schizophrenic when examined in the context of adventurism abroad. It seems counterintuitive that we would be invading sovereign states in Mesopotamia while allowing an invasion here at home. However, when seen in the context of neo-Jacobin policy, it makes perfect sense. It is not an invasion, it is an absorption. As the demarcation of nation states that is our Southern border becomes more blurred by the traffic across it, so does the distinction of separate North American entities. Eventually Mexico will lose its identity and its states will simply become part of the United States. The Bush Doctrine will have been accomplished without firing a shot. Well, without firing many shots.
The left's bug-eyed hate Bush opposition has done nothing but strengthen the neo-Jacobins. With useful idiots like Michael Moore and most of the Hollywood elites shrilly screeching about stealing oil and enslaving Muslims, Americans like Andy who seek to remain "rational" form a bulwark of support for the neo-Jacobins' agenda. Bush purrs about security and the GOP faithful preach the gospel of the Bush Doctrine without even remembering it would have been anathema to them twenty short years ago. Bush tells them that we're fighting terror in Iraq and Afghanistan so we don't have to fight it in our streets. But the bushbots and security Moms never stop to question that. If we had a modicum of security, even half the level of the 1970s and 1980s, and a sane border policy, the idea of fighting Muslim terrorists in our streets would have been relegated to the realm of escapist fantasy. Not one of Bush's lemmings stop to consider that the World Trade Center is no longer standing because the Bush-Clinton-Bush triumvirate let the terrorists in.
I believe Bush is little more than the sock puppet he appears to be. If one examines his history, big ideas like this are quite obviously beyond him. He is exactly the vapid frat-boy, born into privilege that his detractors have portrayed. With his pretty, two-dimensional, schoolteacher wife and empty-headed daughters, he could be the yup down the block, mindlessly sliding through life on the proceeds of Mom and Dad's good fortune. Andy wanted to make much of me saying that Bush is evil, but he missed what I actually said. I said the alternative to believing Bush to be merely stupid or insane is to believe that he is evil. I believe his evil is that same little evil committed by his followers. Without a firm ideological footing, they have fallen victim to the neo-cons and their destructive agenda. When, like that of the historical Jacobins, that agenda fails or leads to disaster, Bush and his lemmings will be left shaking their heads and wondering what happened.
posted by Anonymous | 7:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home