This article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_gibson_doctrine.html
accuses Charlie Gibson of attempting to humiliate Palin by asking her an unfair question without a real answer. It argues that the "Bush Doctrine" is ambiguous and that there is no real answer to the question. Here is the clip if you haven’t seen it:
I have heard the argument made an number of times and have seen it "chaining out" on comments to videos and conservative blog posts. I think the "there is no Bush Doctrine" or "there are many "Bush Doctrines" defense is false and I think this article I have posted is intellectually dishonest. However, I don't want my partisanship to dictate what I would rather have as an academic conversation both about the implications of this interview and the concept of the Bush doctrine. I will propose two theses that just-so-happen to line up with my politics:
1) The "Bush Doctrine" is a term of art-it has a specific meaning inside foreign policy discourse and most people who are steeped in foreign policy are intimately familiar with it. It represents the shift away from international law and is a justification for attacking another state without provocation. It can mean "if you harbor terrorists we will treat you like terrorists" (hence the Afghanistan invasion) but it was also used to justify invading Iraq when there was no evidence that Iraq was planning an attack on the United States. It is important to note that this doctrine violates international law and just war theory and thus has been one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush administration. Here are some links that show it is clearly used the way I have described:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
The first two links are to very generic definitions from SourseWatch and Wikipedia. In include them to demonstrate that, while "Bush Doctrine" may not be "common knowledge," it does have a commonly accepted meaning. The Wikipedia entry even recognizes that the doctrine shifted over time (giving some credence to the "multiple doctrines" argument) but clearly defines it as the shift away from international norms and into an aggressive "strike first" posture.
The third like is to an article by the American Enterprise Institute, a sharply neo-conservative think tank (the origin of the idea for the Surge in Iraq). The article is very pro Bush Doctrine but also clearly operates with a precise understanding of what it is.
2) The interview does not reflect poorly on Charlie Gibson. If he were drinking coffee, he would have spit it when she said "In what respect Charlie?" He was genuinely surprised that a vice-presidential candidate would be unaware of a MAJOR shift in US foreign policy. I think this demonstrates the vast difference between folksy, every day knowledge and the knowledge of a "serious" candidate for VP. Lots of people don't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is or that there is a specific "Bush Doctrine" but from an IR perspective it is THE story of the Bush administration. You shouldn't have to know that if you are Gov of Alaska, but you should have to know that if you might be the president.
These opinions are strong and the must be colored with my own political preferences but I firmly believe that my position is also academic. In this instance I hope my feelings would be the same if the shoe were on the other foot and Obama didn't know about the drastic implications of Bush's foreign policy shift.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I really appreciate this post because it is a very good question to raise. I appreciated that Gibson gave her the opportunity to clarify what she interpreted as "Bush doctrine." Because what you said is true: it may not be a term that many of the average Americans are familiar with. But I have to question what your definition of "provocation" is. Does that term imply just an aggressive action against a country or group of people? My dictionary defines "provocation" as "something that incites action or feeling" (if anyone does not like the definition, you can take it up with Webster :)) Does the fact that provocation includes emotion or perhaps a feeling of being threatened change the "Bush Doctrine" in any way? Perhaps this is the definition that Palin was thinking of? On the same note, however, earlier in the interview Palin spoke of the invasion of the Georgian border by Russia "unprovoked"...and although I admit that I am not aware of all aspects of the Russia/Georgia invasion, I find it interesting that the same word is used....
I am interested in the part of the interview when Gibson asked about the Iran/Israel nuclear weapons and Palin repeated the same statement several times in a row: "I don't think we should second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security." Was she trying to emphasize her point, or was she just unsure of what else to say? I am curious what everyone else's thoughts on the subject are.
Charlie Gibson did come under some criticism for this interview, and, while some were perhaps too hard on his role as the interviewer, personally I have a few problems with how he conducted the interview. From the first question he put Palin in the defensive mode. Yes, it is the job of the media to ask the hard questions and be critical of the leaders of our country, but I disagree with the way this interview was held. Several times throughout the interview he started to interrupt her, which is not the job of a journalist at all. Yes, countering her statements and questioning them IS his job, but interrupting should be left to the debates, not formal (supposedly unbiased) interviews. In the interview, Gibson asks why the McCain/Palin ticket has been saying that Obama will raise taxes when "it's been pretty clear what he intends." Not unbiased in the least. This is one thing if your interview is on CNN or FOX News, not so much on ABC. All that being said, there was a lot for Gibson to cover and a lot that people needed to hear from Palin. If I saw a similar interview with Joe Biden where the same offensive approach was used, that would be one thing. The interview was also very obviously edited (for time) but I wonder how much and what was left out for the sake of editing. I have wondered this in other interviews with Obama, Biden and McCain as well.
You could say that I live in a dream world where media is always unbiased, but I realize that is the case. Just a few things I thought interesting with the interview.
I don't find this moment as devastating or revealing as you make it to be, Ben. I think the article you cite makes a valid point that it's a bit hasty to assume there is in fact a discrete foreign policy known as the Bush doctrine or that there is wide-ranging consensus within IR circles as to the what constitutes the doctrine and whether it is even historically unique or significant. It certainly isn't the case that Bush himself theorized the policy as 'the Bush Doctrine.' It's a post-hoc label applied by political scientists attempting to understand the policy.
I think the question could have been asked in a far more straight-forward manner. "Do you agree with the policy put forth in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States?" The fact that he chose to use such a contested and poorly understood term (even within scholarly circles) does give some credence to the article's main argument.
In the context of the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, what constituted "provocation" was some shady evidence of "yellow cake," a few hazy satellite pictures of trucks, and the harsh anti-American bantering from an isolated and desperate for attention dictator. What justified our invasion? The Bush doctrine. We're supposed to root out evil before it's strong enough to strike reach America.
I agree with Travis that this "gotcha" moment isn't as devastating as some may claim. Although, the interview does indicate a clear lack of preparation and experience on Palin's part with dealing with the language of D.C. politics. The implication of not knowing the lingo, is lacking substance and will most likely hold much water. The video could, as many republican reformers like to claim, stand as a testament to her outsider profile. While bringing that more identifable "Baraccuda-like" political excitement to D.C., Palin value-laden profile will easily become situated with the lingo once she's dissolved in that environment.
A more direct question would have helped the media, and democrats for that matter, highlight her inexperience on the level of thinking through complex foreign policy issues. "Do you subscribe to the idea that nations have the right to preemptively strike another sovereign nation, such as 2002 Iraq, on the basis of constructed threats?" (...)Follow up question - "As vice president would you foster the belief that the United States should subscribe to the Bush Doctrines, as enacted in 2003 via a preemptive invasion, with Iran if they continue to develop nuclear enrichment technologies?"
But this is just a shoulda-coulda-woulda situation. So I won't dwell on it further.
One last point, in this link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Charles Krauthammer claims ownership of the term "Bush Doctrine" by claiming that he has the right of authorship to define what the word means.
I raise this point to increase the tension with Ben's original post. Krauthammer's point about the term being somewhat fluid is true to an extent that we can easily find examples of Academics, liberals, conservatives, the media etc. using the term in conflicting instances. I do take some issue that the original user of the terminology is able to redeploy "what they meant" years earlier to prove a political point. This guy has an agenda in stark contrast to my own. Although this example will mean little to non-debaters, I'm reminded of the fluidity of the term "Constructive engagement" by the originator of the term of art for political purposes. The term was morphed to match the policies and international perception of the situation in South Africa. "Bush Doctrine" may be a similar situation where the author changes, or alters what they meant to create a situation where a "gaffe" existed.
-Brian
I am loving this conversation. I did try to overstate my case a bit to provoke some controversy but I am still convinced of two things:
1. "Bush Doctrine" is a term of art. It has fluidity but always refers to the right to attack another country without evidence that an attack by them is imminent. The Bush doctrine marks a major shift in American foreign policy and a decision to break international law and steer away from the just war theory that had guided the behavior of nation states for nearly the entire history of the Westphalian State.
2. Sarah Palin wasn't merely unfamiliar with the lingo. I agree with Lacy, Brian and Travis that her missing the reference is understandable. However, when the question was clarified she answered with a statement that is not controversial at all. She said we should be able to strike someone if there is clear evidence that a threat is imminent. Everyone agrees with that and always has. The Bush Doctrine, as clarified by Charlie Gibson, assumes the right to strike people that we think are hostile whether they pose an imminent threat or not. She did not appear to know the distinction nor did she appear cognizant of the shift in foreign policy prior to the Iraq war.
This question is perhaps the most important question of the election to our European allies yet it is a question Gov. Palin did not seem to understand at all. We all know what the implication of this is…if something happened to McCain the decision about pre-emptive war doctrine would be made not by the president but by an unelected McCain appointee.
Palin said something uncontroversial and resorted to a talking point in response to a question? Sounds like a politician alright...maybe she's imminently qualified for the job.
Pre-emptive war actually accords with just war theory and the corpus of international law surrounding it. This is why Israel was not faulted for pre-empting an attack during the 1967 Six Day war. What does not accord with just war theory is preventive war that attacks a potential enemy before they are powerful or even an enemy at all. This is why Israel is faulted for the 1981 bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq.
I think Charlie Gibson's (and yours as well) conflation of these two distinct principles illustrates a lot of the complexities surrounding such questions in foreign policy. Which ultimately leads me to conclude that, were he playing fair, he should have simply asked her about the 2002 NSS (where such a strategy is officially elucidated), not an ambiguous term so open to interpretation.
The "preventative" versus "preemptive" distinction is another semantic trap. Brian and I did use the wrong phrase, this is more evidence that it is ok to get the lingo wrong. However, in my post I was very careful to get the idea correct. Are we allowed to strike a country even if a threat is not imminent? Almost everyone over the expanse of history has said no. There are a few detractors: Japan in the 40s, Hitler, Iraq in the early 90s, Israel in the instance you cite, etc.
Gibson did not make the "preemptive" mistake I made. He clarified "the Bush Doctrine annunciated in 2002 prior to the Iraq war" and then further clarifies "the right of anticipatory self defense." Short of referencing the actual NSS (something she surely has not read) he went above and beyond your suggestion.
My point is NOT that the lingo is clear. My point is that there IS a clear foreign policy shift and she was unaware of it. She didn't say "which of the four" or "there is not a clear or specific Bush doctrine." She said "His world view?" When he clarified the first time she said that she thought Bush was trying to rid the world of terrorism. When he further clarified "anticipatory self defense" she said, in essence, that she supported the just war doctrine but did not take a position on the Bush foreign policy of "anticipatory self defense" or "preventative war."
As I said, the language is slippy but she obvi doesn't know anything about the nature of US foreign policy over the past 8 years or why it has been controversial. I don't think you should have to know that to be a Gov. and I don't think less of her for not knowing. I just think it should be a pre-requisite to the job of presidential understudy. After all, if something happens to McCAin she gets the lead in the play.
A VP should have to know about this, I don't think that is a controversial statement at all.
Post a Comment