Friends,
Friday, September 12, 2008; 11:32 AM
"Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's evident cluelessness when asked in an interviewyesterday if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine is appropriately being seen as emblematic of her ignorance of foreign policy."
***
And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years. Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good."
And then there was Bush's second inaugural address, when he pledged himself to spreading freedom and ending tyranny in the world.
The one thing all these Bush Doctrines have in common is that they are, at this point, utterly inoperative."
***
"Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines: Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01); Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02); Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03); Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05); Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06); and Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all."
Pakistan Watch
Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: "New rules of engagement authorizing U.S. ground attacks inside Pakistan, signed by President Bush in July, were not agreed to by that country's civilian government or its military, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials. . . .
"News of Bush's order, following a strike last week by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos on a village about 20 miles inside Pakistan, brought denunciation yesterday from Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. . . .
"[A] senior European official called the implementation of the new strategy 'peculiar,' since its timing coincided with this week's inauguration of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
"'If you're going to invade another country . . . without their permission, after you've just spent eight years trying to get a democratic government in place, it strikes me as kind of confused politics,' the official said."
And could this be the "groundbreaking" new covert technique that Bob Woodward obliquely alludes to in his new book?
Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes write in the Los Angeles Times: "As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials. . . .
"The new system now being deployed was first used on aircraft in Afghanistan, then was installed on Predators in Iraq starting about a year ago. Officials said introduction of the devices coincided with the 2007 U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, and was an important, but hitherto unknown, factor in the subsequent drop in violence in that country.
"The technology allows suspects to be identified quickly. 'All I have to do is point the sensor at him,' said a military officer familiar with the system, 'and a missile can be off the rail in seconds.'"
Afghanistan WatchJason Straziuso writes for the Associated Press: "Insurgents killed two U.S. troops in Afghanistan on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Thursday, making 2008 the deadliest year for American forces since U.S. troops invaded the country in 2001 for sheltering Osama bin Laden.
"The deaths brought the number of troops who have died in Afghanistan this year to 113, according to an Associated Press tally, surpassing last year's record toll of 111."
Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed: "This week, as we remember the nearly 3,000 American citizens who died in the rubble of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or in a remote field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, we also should think about the civilians who are still dying in Afghanistan. . . .
"Civilians in Afghanistan have been caught in the crossfire for too long. Over-reliance on airstrikes is counterproductive in the battle for Afghan hearts and minds. President Bush's announcement this week that he will send nearly 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan is a good way to start ameliorating this situation, but it is not enough."
India WatchBush is apparently pretty confident that Congress will pass his controversial nuclear deal with India. He's invited the Indian Prime Minister to town, one day before the congressional recess -- presumably on the assumption that there will be a signing ceremony to attend.
AFP reports: "The nuclear agreement, signed by President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005, offers India access to Western technology and cheap atomic energy as long as it allows UN nuclear inspections of some of its nuclear facilities.
"If Congress endorses the agreement it would lift a three decade-old ban on nuclear trade with India. . . .
"The White House said Thursday that Bush would welcome Singh on September 25 for talks on bilateral relations, including the nuclear deal. . . .
"A US administration official said he was not aware of any agreement to be signed by the two leaders on the nuclear deal.
"'The fact that they agreed to meet at this particular time is a strong indication that both sides really are satisfied with the level of effort that they put into it,' he said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
Congress is due to adjourn Sept. 26."
No comments:
Post a Comment