Political science professor, proud neoconservative and foreign policy blogger extraordinaire Donald Douglas gas noted the possible changes coming from te Obama Administration concerning American foreign policy:
If there’s one thing leftists hate more than anything else about the foreign policy of George W. Bush, it was the administration’s bold willingness to use force in defense of American interests.So as the Pentagon prepares for its Quadrennial Defense Review, leftists are getting a chance to demonize the previous administration once more (see, “Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine Under Review, May Be Discarded“). While it’s almost comical that this strategic assessment is being framed as a way to revise U.S. doctrine on preemptive war (since President Obama is the personification of exactly the opposite), you’ve got to love how Daily Kosrepresents the Bush administration’s foreign policy:
Preemption, that is, initiating a first strike against another nation that appears to be preparing an imminent attack or is already in the process of launching one is not particularly controversial. It’s self-defense. And every nation has the right to it. Supporters of preventive war, on the other hand, argue for strategically attacking nations which may, someday, pose a military threat. Preventive war cannot, therefore, be distinguished from a war of aggression, a violation of the most fundamental international law ….
It’s this kind of thinking which says it’s not only OK but downright prudent to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent that country from ever building its own nuclear weapons. Moral issues aside, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, such thinking is no different from saying that torturing an enemy soldier is OK: It lets that enemy or a future enemy justify the torture of one’s own soldiers. If it’s all right for the U.S. to strike preventively at Iran, why isn’t it all right for the same to be done by Iran – which during the Cheney-Bush administration had good reason to believe it was under threat of attack?
But let’s be blunt about practicality here: President Obama, in one of his better foreign policy decisions, concluded last March that Islamic extremism/Talibanism was a single problem in both Afghanistan and Pakistan; while there could be be different responses to it in the different countries, it was all the same problem. The supposed international border between those two nations means a lot more to diplomats at the United Nations than it does to the people who live in the region.
In that, our policy under President Obama has been to go after both al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan; because Pakistan has atomic weapons, the possibility of Pakistan falling to the Taliban is simply not acceptable. Whether President Obama and his foreign policy team officially dumps the Bush Doctrine, in practice, where it counts the most, the Obama Administration, at least for the present, is continuing the Bush Doctrine in this most critical of areas.
Dr Douglas concluded:
But what’s especially bothersome is the Daily Kos passage above suggesting “the perniciousness of American exceptionalism.” This concept is fundamentally at issue in leftist foreign policy in Washington, and it’s the current administration’s abandonment of America’s foundational uniqueness that is placing Americans and citizens of the world at greater risk than in other other time in decades.
As I’ve said many times before, it won’t be too soon when American voters reject Barack Neville Hussein and his Democratic (Socialist) Party at the ballot box. In the meanwhile, conservatives can gather strength in the increasing indicators showing that the current administration’s days are indeed numbered.
I share Dr Douglas’ concern about the direction in which our friends on the left would take American foreign policy, but, at least in this one situation, the President has not (yet) surrendered to Islamic fascism.